Stud  ies  in  Bibi  ica  1 L aw 

By  Harold  M.  Wiener,  M.A.,  LL.  B. 

OF  LINCOLN’S  INN,  BARRISTER-AT-LAW 
FORMERLY  A SENIOR  WHEWELL  SCHOLAR  OF  THE 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CAMBRIDGE 

A valuable  volume,  in  which  he  [the  author]  criticizes,  with 
damaging  effect,  much  of  the  treatment  by  the  Wellhausen  school 
of  the  laws  ©f  the  Pentateuch,  and  shows  much  cause  for  distrust- 
ing, for  example,  some  of  Dr.  Driver’s  arguments  on  the  subject. — 
The  very  Rev.  Henry  Wace,  D.D.,  Dean  of  Canterbury,  in  The 
Churchman. 

As  a whole,  these  “Studies”  are  of  unusual  worth.  They  accom- 
plish for  certain  Old  Testament  themes  what  Greenleaf,  Lyttleton, 
and  West  did  in  New  Testament  lines. — Review  and  Expositor. 

£t  is  bold  and  refreshing  ....  our  writer  goes  over  ground 
trodden  nearly  two  thousand  years  ago  by  the  sages  of  the  Mish- 
nah;  but  he  strikes  out.  his  own  line  and  stands  forth  much  more 
logical  than  the  old  Pharisaic  doctors. — New  York  Evening  Post. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  in  this  examination  of  the  Biblical  jural 
laws  Mr.  Wiener  has  opened  up  a new  and  valuable  source  of  infor- 
mation as  to  the  dates  of  the  various  books  of  the  Pentateuch. — 
Academy. 

....  both  novel  and  interesting.  . . . The  method  employed  is  an 
ingenious  and  skillful  application  of  the  principles  of  legal  inter- 
pretation to  texts  in  apparent  conflict. — Harvard  Laic  Review. 

Altogether  the  volume  is  one  of  great  importance  and  value. — 
Bibliotheca  Sacra. 

The  work  ....  convincingly  show’s  the  necessity  and  certainty 
of  a speedy  broadening  of  the  horizon  of  inquiry  in  critical  Bible 
study. — W dtchword  and  Truth. 


LONDON:  DAVID  NUTT,  57-59  LONG  ACRE 


Pentateuchal  Studies 

BY 

Harold  M.  Wiener,  M.A.,  LL.B. 

Barrister-at-Law,  Lincoln's  Inn f London 

A Continuation  of  the  Author’s  Detailed  Discussions  contained 
in  his  “ Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism  ” 

370  pages,  8vo,  cloth.  $2.00,  net;  postage,  17  cents 

“The  publication  of  Dr.  Wiener’s  latest  volume  is  a new  reminder  that  there 
has  appeared  on  the  arena  a gladiator  wThom  the  reckless  criticism  of  the  day 
will  find  it  difficult  to  either  conquer  or  avoid.” — Rev.  J.  Reinke  in  The  Presby- 
terian (Philadelphia). 

“ The  Bibliotheca  Sacra  Company  is  doing  great  things  for  the  cause  of  truth 

in  its  publication  of works  tending  to  the  confirmation  of  the  facts  as  set  forth 

in  the  Bible.. . .This  added  volume  gives  us  a series  of  books  of  exceedingly  great 
interest  and  value.” — The  Journal  and  Messenger  (Cincinnati). 

“This  mass  of  erudition  is  used  with  consummate  skill  to  show  that  the 
legislation  of  Moses  was  adapted  to  the  time,  culture,  surroundings  and  circum- 
stances in  which  the  Israelites  were  living.” — The  Evening  Journal  (Albany). 

“ We  should  like  to  see  all  of  our  ministers  own  and  master  the  contents  of 
this  volume.” — Herald  of  Gospel  Liberty  (Dayton). 

“ The  writer  is  a layman  of  highly  trained  mind  in  his  own  legal  profession, 
to  whom  questions  of  law  and  evidence  present  a more  familiar  aspect  than  they 

do  to  the  theologian ; a man  of  large  scholarly  equipment,  a skilled  Hebraist, 

well  versed  in  the  critical  literature  of  the  day,  English,  Continental,  and  Amer- 
ican, familiar  as  few  are  with  Septuagint,  Samaritan,  and  other  version  lore, 
and  capable  of  wielding  a vigorous,  argumentative  pen.” — Rev.  Professor  James 
Orr,  D.D.,  in  the  British  Weekly. 

“ Mr.  Wiener  has  the  linguistic  and  legal  equipment  that  qualifies  him  to  test 
the  processes  of  Pentateuchal  criticism  at  every  point.  He  cannot  be  ignored  by 
the  followers  of  Wellhausen.” — Professor  John  R.  Sampey,  D.D.,  in  The  Review 
and  Expositor. 

The  references  in  this  volume  to  the  author’s  articles  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sa- 
cra and  Princeton  Review,  except  those  incorporated  in  his  “ Essays  in  Penta- 
teuchal Criticism,”  will  all  be  found  in  his  “ Pentateuchal  Studies.” 

Address : BIBLIOTHECA  SACRA  COMPANY.  Oberlin,  Ohio 


Essays  in 

Pentateuchal  Criticism 

By  HAROLD  M.  WIENER,  M.A.,  LL.B. 

OF  LINCOLN'S  INN,  BARRISTER-AT-LAW 
author  of  “ Studies  in  Biblical  Law  ” 

255  pages,  8vo,  clotli 

He  [the  author]  has  brought  together  in  this  volume  a mass  of 
learned  observation  and  argument  which  cannot  be  disregarded, 
and  we  await  with  interest  the  answers  which  it  claims  in  detail 
from  the  representatives  of  the  critical  school  in  this  country. — 
Rev.  Henry  Wace,  D.D.,  Dean  of  Canterbury,  in  The  Churchman. 

No  one  can  face  this  argumentation  and  continue  to  hold  the 
WelJhausen  divisive  theory  concerning  the  Pentateuch  without  find- 
ing for  himself  what  is  for  him  a sufficient  answer  thereto.  Self- 
respect  could  allow  no  less.— Prof.  M.  G.  Kyle,  D.D. 

The  author  shows  himself  a serious  and  painstaking  scholar,  and 
here  launches  a formidable  attack  against  the  widely  accepted  Doc- 
umentary Theory  as  to  the  origin  and  structure  of  the  Pentateuch. 

. . . — Principal  I.  S.  Clemens  in  The  United  Methodist  Magazine. 

These  Essays  deserve  the  careful  consideration  of  all  those  who 
. . . . desire  to  know  whether  the  Higher  Critical  position  is  tena- 
ble or  not. — The  Rev.  W.  St.  Clair  Tisdall,  D.D.,  in  The  Record. 

The  book  is  a most  important  contribution  to  the  criticism  of  the 
Pentateuch. — The  Tablet. 

An  interesting  volume  ....  contributing  to  all  points  not  merely 
the  negative  work  of  criticising  critics,  but  the  more  difficult  and 
positive  effort  of  personal  interpretation.  . . . The  style  is  simple 
and  clear,  so  that  it  is  a book  to  be  appreciated  by  a very  large 
class  of  readers. — The  Catholic  World,  October,  3910. 

We  have  on  the  main  question  of  its  subject  matter  only  words 
of  praise  for  this  acute  and  diligent  student.  The  clarity  with 
which  he  exhibits  the  uncertain  textual  basis  of  the  documentary 
hypothesis,  particularly  in  the  matter  of  the  divine  names,  deserves 
the  highest  praise,  and,  though  not  a new  indictment  against  that 
hypothesis,  is  probably  for  the  first  time  given  an  adequate  and 
systematic  treatment. — Prof.  J.  Oscar  Boyd  in  Princeton  Review. 

BIBLIOTHECA  SACRA  COMPANY 

OBERLIN,  OHIO,  U.  S.  A. 

LONDON:  ELLIOT  STOCK,  62  PATERNOSTER  ROW,  E.  C. 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 

By 

HAROLD  M.  WIENER,  M.A.,  LL.B. 

Of  Lincoln’s  Inn,  Barrister-at-Law 

Author  of  " Studies  in  Biblical  Law,”  " Essays  in  Pentateuchal 
Criticism,"  Etc. 


SECOND  IMPRESSION 


OBERLIN,  OHIO,  U.  S.  A. 

BIBLIOTHECA  SACRA  COMPANY 

London:  Elliot  Stock,  62  Paternoster  Row,  E.  C. 
1912 


£6  3a\B  “ 


Z<ZZ.\ 

V/  &Sfr 


CONTENTS 


I.  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM 7 

Difficulties  of  the  Pentateuch  . . . . .7 

The  Story  of  Joseph  ......  8 

The  Narratives  of  the  Tent  of  Meeting  ....  9 

The  Priesthood  . . . . . .10 

Other  Legal  Difficulties  . . . . . .10 

Other  Difficulties  ......  11 

Astruc  and  the  Documentary  Theory  ...  12 

The  Critical  Method  Exemplified  . . . .13 

The  Current  Documentary  Theory  . . . .14 

The  Development  Hypothesis  . . . 16 

II.  THE  ANSWER  OF  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM  . . .18 

The  Materials  for  the  Textual  Criticism  of  the  Penta- 
teuch . . . . ...  . .18 

The  Septuagint  . . . . . 19 

The  Discrepancy  in  Exodus  xviii.  5 ff . . .20 

The  Legitimacy  of  Textual  Criticism  . . .21 

The  Need  of  Caution  . . . . . . 23 

Other  Greek  Versions  . . . . . 23 

The  “ Priests  ” of  Exodus  xix.  . . . .24 

Aquila  and  the  Tetragrammaton  . . 25 

Other  Versions  .......  25 

Astruc’s  Clue  Tested  . . . . 25 

The  Impossibility  of  Effecting  a Clean  Division  . 26 

The  Redactor’s  Conduct  . . . . 27 

Ihe  Textual  Objection  . . . . . .28 

Some  Illustrations  ......  30 

The  Importance  of  the  Argument  . . . .30 

The  Discussion  in  the  Expository  Times  . . 31 

Professor  Schlogl’s  Contribution  . . . .36 

Dr.  Skinner’s  “ Genesis  ” . . . . .36 

Professor  Toy’s  Admissions  . . . . .37 

Other  Tests  of  the  Clue  .....  37 

The  Attitude  of  the  Higher  Critics  . . . 38 

The  Meaning  of  Exodus  vi.  3 . . . . 39 

Glosses  in  the  Massoretic  Text  . . . .40 

Critical  Bearings  of  Glosses  ....  41 

Colenso  on  the  Family  of  Judah  . . . 43 

The  Answer  to  Colenso  ....  44 

The  Story  of  Joseph  . . . . ...  46 

Korah,  Dathan  and  Abiram  . . . . .48 

Derangements  of  Order  .....  49 

Other  Transpositions  . . . . . .52 

The  Tent  of  Meeting  . . . . . 53 

Joshua’s  Supposed  Priesthood  . ...  55 

The  Numbers  of  the  Israelites  ...  56 

The  Chronology  of  Numbers  . . . . .57 


iv  Contents 

III.  THE  ARGUMENTS  FROM  LAW  AND  HISTORY  . . 58 

The  Interpretation  of  the  Laws  . . . .58 

An  Unanswered  Challenge  . . . . .59 

Wellhausen  on  Sanctuaries  . . . . .60 

The  Answer  to  Wellhausen  . . . . .62 

Sacrifice  without  Theophanv  . . . . .62 

House  of  God  and  Lay  Altars  . . . . .63 

The  Triple  System  of  Offerings  . . . .65 

The  Pilgrimages  in  JE  . . .66 

The  Self-consistency  of  the  Legislation  . . .66 

The  Priests  and  Levites  . . . . .67 

The  Wellhausen  Reconstruction  . .67 

Ezekiel  ........  68 

Attractiveness  of  this  Theory  . . . . 70 

The  True  Course  of  the  History  . . . .71 

The  Choice  of  Views  . . . . . .73 

The  Levites  in  “ P ” . . . . . . 73 

“ P ” Does  Not  Reflect  Post-Exilic  Conditions  . . 74 

The  Priests  in  “ P ” . . . . . 76 

Minor  Points  . . . . . . .76 

Firstlings  . . . . . . 78 

The  Slave  Laws  . . . . . .79 

IV.  THE  LITERARY  ARGUMENT 81 

The  Bias  and  Inaccuracy  of  the  Critics  . .83 

The  Redactors  .......  84 

Strangeness  of  the  Selection  of  Words  . . .85 

Literary  Feeling  .......  86 

Critical  Lack  of  Judgment  . . . . .88 

The  Effect  of  Glosses  on  Style  . . . . 89 

Style  Not  Necessarily  a Criterion  of  Authorship  . . 89 

V.  HIGHER  CRITICAL  ARGUMENTS  AND  POSITIONS 

THAT  ARE  DUE  TO  PURELY  SUBJECTIVE 

CAUSES 92 

The  Ark  in  Numbers  x.  . . . . .92 

Criticism  of  Dr.  Gray’s  View  . . . . .93 

Dr.  Kautzsch’s  Views  . .....  94 

Dr.  Kuenen’s  Views  ......  95 

Mr.  Addis’s  View  . . . . . . .95 

The  Mental  Atmosphere  of  the  Critics  . . .96 

Dreams  and  Angels  as  Criteria  of  “Sources”  . 97 

The  Doublets  .......  98 

The  Case  of  Aram-naharaim  . . .99 

Laban’s  Home  in  Syria  . . . . . 101 

Balaam’s  Home  .......  101 

Another  Instance  ....  ...  102 

Sympathy  with  Eastern  Ideas  Necessary  . . . 103 

Ignorance  of  Human  Nature  ....  104 

Another  Subjective  Cause  .....  104 

What  the  Critics  Believe  .....  105 

Critical  Disagreement  ......  106 

VI.  THE  SIGNS  OF  POST-MOSAIC  DATE  . . .107 


Contents 


VII.  THE  MORAL  AND  PSYCHOLOGICAL  ISSUES  . . 110 

The  Legislation  Professedly  Mosaic  . . . 110 

The  Decalogue  and  Deuteronomy  ....  Ill 
The  Priestly  Code Ill 

VIII.  THE  THEORY  OF  A HEXATEUCH  . . .112 

IX.  THE  CONSTRUCTIVE  CASE  FOR  UNITY  . . . 113 

Signs  of  Unity  .......  114 

Genesis  xxix. — xxxiii.  .....  114 

Numbers  xvi.  .......  115 

The  Characters  Unitary  ....  . 116 

X.  THE  EVIDENCE  FOR  MOSAIC  DATE  . . . 117 

A.  Internal  Evidence  ....  117 

Professor  Green  on  Deuteronomy  ....  117 

The  Historical  Situation  Required  by  “ P ” . . . 118 

The  Concentration  of  the  People  ....  119 

The  Law  of  Slaughter  for  Food  . . . . . 120 

Other  Historical  Evidence  .....  121 

The  Hierarchical  Organization  ....  122 

Ezra  and  the  Law  .......  123 

The  Legal  Evidence  of  Mosaic  Date  . . . 123 

The  Law  of  Theft 126 

Other  Legal  Evidence  . . . . . . 127 

The  Evidence  of  the  Narrative  . . . . . 128 

B.  External  Evidence  of  Date  . . 129 

Ezekiel  and  “ P ” 130 

Law  and  Teaching  .......  131 

Hosea’s  Testimony  .......  131 

Evidence  of  the  Existence  of  Institutions  . . . 132 

XI.  THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PRE-MOSAIC  DATE  . . .134 

The  Evidence  of  Genesis  x.  19 134 

The  Legal  Evidence  . ....  135 

The  Law  of  Homicide  ......  137 

The  Father’s  Power  ......  138 

The  Archaeological  Evidence  .....  138 

Impossibility  of  the  Critical  Explanations  . . . 139 

The  Archaeological  Confirmation  . . . . 140 

XII.  THE  TESTIMONY  OF  TRADITION  . . . .141 

XIII.  CONSTRUCTIVE  CONCLUSIONS 143 

The  Pentateuch  i Piece  o'  Statesmanship  . . . 144 

The  Order  of  the  Laws 144 

Other  Results  .......  145 

INDEX  I (Texts) 147 

INDEX  II  (Subjects)  . . 150 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


i 

THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM 

It  is  well  known  that  in  our  time  a view  of  the  origin  of 
the  Pentateuch  differing  fundamentally  from  that  commonly 
held  by  Jews  and  Christians  alike  has  found  extensive  accept- 
ance in  all  quarters  of  the  civilized  world.  The  object  of  this 
book  is  to  consider  whether  this  view7  is  tenable  in  the 
light  of  the  best  modern  scholarship  and,  if  it  be  not,  to  sug- 
gest to  wrhat  conclusion  the  evidence  at  present  points. 

DIFFICULTIES  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 
That  the  Pentateuch  in  its  present  form  contains  many 
grave  difficulties  has  been  obvious  to  students  of  every  age. 
Evidence  of  this  may  be  found,  for  example,  in  the  Samaritan 
Pentateuch.  The  Samaritans,  as  is  well  known,  possess  an 
edition  of  the  Pentateuch  which  is  in  most  respects  substan- 
tially identical  with  the  ordinary  Jewish  text.  But  (apart 
from  other  matters  which  need  not  now  detain  us)  it  shows 
changes  that  have  been  made  for  the  purpose  of  reconciling 
discrepancies  in  the  original.  For  instance,  it  is  stated  in  the 
book  of  Numbers  that  Aaron  died  on  Mount  Hor  (Num.  xx. 
22-29;  xxxiii.  38),  but  in  Deut.  x.  6 we  find  a different  ac- 
count, according  to  which  he  died  in  Moserah,  which  appears 
to  be  the  same  place  as  the  Moseroth  of  Num.  xxxiii.  30,  31. 
The  Samaritan  edition  meets  this  and  the  other  difficulties  that 
arise  on  a comparison  between  Deut.  x.  6,  7,  and  Num  xxxiii. 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


by  rewriting  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy  in  the  light  of  the 
data  of  Numbers,  incorporating  such  additional  information 
as  is  contained  in  Deuteronomy. 

No  textual  importance  attaches  to  the  Samaritan  altera- 
tion ; but  it  shows  very  clearly  how  strongly  the  difficulty  was 
felt  more  than  two  thousand  years  ago. 

THE  STORY  OF  JOSEPH 

Other  difficulties  are  numerous.  Thus  if  we  look  at  the 
story  of  Joseph  we  shall  find  much  that  is  not  easy  to  under- 
stand. When  he  had  been  thrown  into  the  pit  by  his  brethren, 
'A  travelling  company  of  Ishmaelites  came  from  Gilead  ’ 
(Gen.  xxxvii.  25).  The  brothers  decided  to  sell  him;  and 
then  we  read:  “and  there  passed  by  men,  Midianites,  mer- 
chantmen, and  they  drew  and  lifted  up  Joseph  out  of  the  pit 
and  sold  Joseph  to  the  Ishmaelites  . . . .And  the  Medanites 
sold  him  into  Egypt  unto  Potiphar  ....  and  Potiphar  .... 
bought  him  of  the  hand  of  the  Ishmaelites  which  had  brought 
him  down  thither  ” (Gen.  xxxvii.  28,  36 ; xxxix.  1). 

This  alternation  of  the  terms  “ Midianites  ” (“  Medanites  ”) 
and  “ Ishmaelites  ” is  certainly  perplexing,  and  it  is  difficult  to 
understand  why  those  who  had  already  been  introduced  into  the 
narrative  should  suddenly  be  reintroduced  as  “ men,  Midian- 
ites, merchantmen,”  as  if  nothing  had  been  said  of  them  before. 
It  may  be  that  “ Midianites  ” and  “ Ishmaelites  ” were  terms 
that  were  sometimes  interchangeable,  but  we  must  not  wonder 
if  there  are  minds  that  regard  this  explanation  as  insufficient 
to  account  for  the  phenomena  of  our  present  text.  Then,  if 
we  go  a little  further  on,  we  shall  find  some  more  embarrass- 
ments awaiting  us.  As  the  result  of  an  unjust  accusation 
made  by  his  wife,  the  captain  of  the  guard,  Potiphar,  who 
was  Joseph’s  master,  threw  him  into  prison.  Where?  “And 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


9 


Joseph’s  master  took  him,  and  put  him  into  the  prison,  the 
place  where  the  king’s  prisoners  were  bound : and  he  was  there 
in  the  prison.  But  the  Lord  was  with  Joseph,  and  showed 
kindness  unto  him,  and  gave  him  favor  in  the  sight  of  the  keep- 
er of  the  prison.  And  the  keeper  of  the  prison  committed  to 
Joseph’s  hand  all  the  prisoners  that  were  in  the  prison  ” (Gen. 
xxxix.  20-22).  That  seems  clear  enough,  but  the  next  chap- 
ter is  in  conflict  with  it.  Pharaoh,  being  angry  with  his  two 
officers,  “ put  them  in  ward  in  the  house  of  the  captain  of  the 
guard,  into  the  prison,  the  place  where  Joseph  was  bound. 
And  the  captain  of  the  guard  charged  Joseph  with  them,  and 
he  ministered  unto  them  ....  And  he  asked  Pharaoh’s  officers 
that  were  with  him  in  zvard  in  his  master’s  house  ” (xl.  2-4, 
7).  It  will  be  seen  that  the  prison  is  here  located  in  his  mas- 
ter’s house,  and  that  Joseph’s  attendance  on  prisoners  is  at- 
tributed not  to  the  favor  of  the  keeper  of  the  prison,  but  to  the 
action  of  the  captain  of  the  guard.  No  doubt  a formal  recon- 
ciliation is  possible,  but  the  text  is  far  from  easy. 

THE  NARRATIVES  OF  THE  TENT  OF  MEETING 
Serious  trouble  is  caused  by  the  narratives  of  the  Tent  of 
Meeting.  In  Ex.  xxxiii.  7-11,  before  the  Ark  is  made,  Moses 
takes  “ the  tent,”  and  pitches  it  outside  the  camp,  and  calls  it 
“ the  tent  of  meeting.”  When  he  leaves  it,  Joshua,  his  ser- 
vant, is  in  charge.  Now  the  verbs  used  are  frequentative  and 
point  to  a regular  practice.  It  is  striking  that  a few  chapters 
earlier  detailed  instructions  had  been  given  to  Moses  for  the 
erection  of  the  later  Tabernacle  (Ex.  xxv.  fif.),  which  was  a 
far  more  elaborate  structure,  situate  in  the  midst  of  the  camp 
and  guarded  by  priests.  The  points  of  conflict  between  the 
two  representations  are  many  and  serious.  If  in  the  one  we 
find  Joshua  an  Ephraimite,  the  ministry  , of  the  other  is  re- 


10 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


served  for  priests  and  Levites : outside  the  camp  is  quite  a 
different  location  from  that  of  the  better  known  Dwelling 
which  stood  carefully  guarded  in  the  center  of  a symmetrically 
formed  encampment : the  sizes  of  the  two  structures  and  the 
materials  of  which  they  were  made  are  entirely  different : and 
so  on.  Nor  is  the  difficulty  diminished  by  later  passages  in 
Num.  xi.  and  xii.,  where  we  read  of  “ going  out  ” to  the  Tent 
of  Meeting,  though  it  must  be  conceded  that  the  verb  used 
does  not  necessarily  imply  that  the  tent  was  elsewhere  than  in 
the  center  of  the  camp,  so  that  these  passages  would  not  in 
themselves  cause  trouble  if  Ex.  xxxiii.  could  be  explained  sat- 
isfactorily. 

THE  PRIESTHOOD 

Closely  related  to  this  is  a group  of  problems  affecting  the 
priesthood.  The  Ephraimite  Joshua,  as  we  have  seen,  remains 
in  the  Tent  of  Meeting  in  one  representation,  while  in  another 
its  ministers  are  Priests  and  Levites.  These  two  classes  are 
not  equal,  but  are  sharply  distinguished  in  the  book  of  Num- 
bers. Deuteronomy,  however,  has  yet  a third  tale  to  tell.  It 
practically  equates  priests  and  Levites,  referring  constantly  to 
“ the  priests  the  Levites,”  and  it  becomes  difficult  or  impossible 
to  trace  in  its  provisions  the  distinctions  of  Numbers.  This 
difficult)7  is  accentuated  by  discrepancies  in  the  laws  as  to  first- 
lings and  other  subjects. 

OTHER  LEGAL  DIFFICULTIES 

Other  enactments  that  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  priest- 
hood are  also  pressed  into  service.  It  is  said  that  Ex.  xxi.  and 
Deut.  xv.  contain  laws  giving  Hebrew  slaves  a right  to  free- 
dom after  six  years’  service,  to  be  followed  by  perpetual  slavery 
if  the  slave  refuses  to  avail  himself  of  the  right,  but  Lev.  xxv. 
forbids  perpetual  slavery,  gives  a right  to  freedom  in  the  year 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


11 


of  jubilee,  and  knows  nothing  of  these  provisions  of  the  other 
books.  How  can  two  such  entirely  different  sets  of  laws  pro- 
ceed from  one  man?  Harmonizing  interpretations  seeking  to 
show  that  the  law  of  Exodus  applied  subject  to  the  jubilee  do 
not  meet  the  difficulty.  It  is  true  that  a legislator  might  easily 
enact  that  slaves  should  go  free  in  the  jubilee  year,  and  that 
(subject  to  that  provision)  they  were  to  serve  for  six  years, 
and,  if  they  then  refused  freedom,  until  the  next  jubilee;  but 
that  is  not  the  case  here.  The  two  laws  are  not  brought  into 
relation  with  each  other  as  they  should  be  if  the  lawgiver  in- 
tended that  both  institutions  should  apply  to  the  same  persons. 

OTHER  DIFFICULTIES 

Again,  it  has  been  noticed  that  there  are  a larg'e  number  of 
narratives  relating  to  similar  incidents.  “ Twice  do  quails  ap- 
pear in  connection  wth  the  daily  manna  (Num.  xi.  4-6,  31  ff. 
and  Ex.  xvi.  13).  Twice  does  Moses  draw  water  from  the 
rock,  when  the  strife  of  Israel  begets  the  name  Meribah 
(strife)  (Ex.  xvii.  1-7  and  Num.  xx.  1-13).”  1 Such  doub- 
lets, as  they  are  called,  are  used  as  a further  argument  against 
the  traditional  view ; and  they  are  supported  by  other  phenom- 
ena presented  by  the  laws.  Here  too  we  meet  wuth  frequent 
repetitions.  Thus  the  calendar  of  festivals  occurs  no  fewer 
than  four  times  in  various  forms.  These  facts  require  explan- 
ation, as  do  also  the  perplexing  order  and  arrangement  of  the 
laws.  The  sequence  of  the  various  rules  and  the  general 
grouping  of  the  whole  legislation  into  widely  separate  bodies 
are  certainly  not  intelligible  at  first  sight.  Few'  readers  of  the 
Bible  could  give  a satisfactory  account  of  the  order  and  ar- 
rangement of  the  legislation  of  the  Pentateuch.  Then  again 
the  narrative  is  frequently  disjointed.  Here  it  is  sometimes 
quite  impossible  to  understand  the  sequence  of  events  or  the 
lJ.  Estlin  Carpenter,  Oxford  Hexateuch,  vol.  i.  p.  30. 


12 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


reasons  for  the  order  adopted.  The  principles  are  certainly 
not  similar  to  those  followed  in  any  other  book,  sacred  or  pro- 
fane, and  in  many  cases  the  reader  can  form  no  clear  conception 
of  the  events  narrated. 

ASTRUC  AND  THE  DOCUMENTARY  THEORY 

It  has  been  sought  to  meet  these  difficulties  by  resolving  the 
Pentateuch  into  a number  of  documents.  Instead  of  regarding 
it  as  a work  of  Moses,  the  widely  prevalent  documentary  theory 
sees  in  it  a compilation  from  a number  of  post-Mosaic  docu- 
ments. Astruc,  the  father  of  this  view,  was  a writer  who 
believed  in  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  He 
thought  that  Moses  must  have  composed  the  book  of  Genesis 
from  older  sources,  and  he  suggested  a clue  which  has  been 
adopted  by  nearly  all  succeeding  critics.  Ex.  vi.  3 runs : “ And 
I appeared  to  Abraham,  to  Isaac,  and  to  Jacob,  as  God  Al- 
mighty; but  by  my  name  JHVH  I was  not  known  to  them.” 
This  Name  is  called  the  Tetragrammaton,  from  its  posses- 
sing four  letters.  In  the  ordinary  English  Bibles  it  is  almost 
always  rendered  “ the  Lord  ” — the  small  capitals  being  used 
to  show  that  the  Name  here  occurs  in  the  Hebrew  text,  and 
that  the  English  is  not  a rendering  of  the  ordinary  word  for 
Lord.  In  this  the  English  Bible  merely  follows  later  Jewish 
usage,  which  avoided  the  Name  of  God  from  a feeling  of  rev- 
erence. This  practice  has  obscured  the  facts  for  many  English 
readers  who  do  not  always  realize  that  there  are  a number  of 
passages  in  Genesis  which  are  inconsistent  with  Ex.  vi.  If 
the  Name  was  not  known  before  the  time  of  Moses,  it  is  hard 
to  see  how  men  could  have  begun  to  call  upon  it  in  the  days 
of  Enosh  (Gen.  iv.  26),  or  how  Abram  could  have  used  it  in 
Gen.  xv.  2,  where  the  “ God”  of  the  Authorized  Version  rep- 
resents the  Tetragrammaton.  Yet  side  by  side  with  the  pas- 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


13 


sages  where  the  Tetragrammaton  is  used  we  find  other  pas- 
sages in  which  the  Deity  is  designated  by  the  word  Elohim, 
God.  Accordingly  Astruc  proposed  the  appellations  of  the 
Deity  in  the  book  of  Genesis  as  affording  a clue  to  earlier 
sources  and  suggested  a division.  This  suggestion  has  been 
taken  up  by  many  subsequent  writers,  but  with  an  important 
difference.  While  Astruc  believed  in  the  Mosaic  authorship 
of  the  Pentateuch,  his  successors  discarded  that  view,  and 
sought  to  divide  the  whole  work  into  continuous  post-Mosaic 
documents.  Indeed,  at  the  present  day  most  critics  go  fur- 
ther and  speak  not  of  a Pentateuch,  but  of  a Hexateuch  (con- 
sisting of  the  first  six  books  of  the  Bible),  as  having  been 
composed  from  such  sources.  After  Ex.  vi.  3,  the  clue 
afforded  by  the  Divine  appellations  naturally  fails,  but  it  is 
claimed  that  this  clue  has  led  the  way  to  the  detection  of  other 
clues  which  continue  after  the  revelation  of  the  Tetragram- 
maton. Perhaps  some  examples  of  the  method  will  be  the 
best  explanation. 

THE  CRITICAL  METHOD  EXEMPLIFIED 
Throughout  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  and  the  first  three 
verses  of  the  second  we  find  the  Deity  referred  to  as  Elohim, 
i.e.  God.  Hence  this  passage  will  be  assigned  to  a document 
that  does  not  use  the  Tetragrammaton  in  Genesis.  This  sup- 
posed source  is  now  generally  called  P,  i.e.  the  Priestly 
writing,  but  was  earlier  known  as  the  Elohist,  and  then,  when 
a second  Elohist  was  distinguished,  as  the  first  Elohist.  It 
will  uniformly  be  called  P in  the  present  discussion.  But  in 
the  middle  of  ii.  4 we  find  a change.  Instead  of  reading  “ God,” 
we  suddenly  come  upon  “ Lord  GoD,”and  accordingly  a writer 
J is  here  postulated,  who  used  the  Tetragrammaton  from  the 
beginning  of  his  narrative.  If,  now,  we  compare  i.  1 — ii.  3 


14 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


with  ii.  4b1  ff.,  we  shall  find  that  there  are  other  differences 
besides  those  of  the  Divine  appellations.  For  example,  in 
i.  1 God  creates  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  but  in  ii.  4b  he 
makes  the  earth  and  the  heavens.  That  is  a difference  of 
vocabulary,  and,  once  it  has  been  established,  it  fixes  the 
provenance  of  ii.  4a : “ these  are  the  generations  of  the 
heavens  and  the  earth  when  they  were  created,”  which  accord- 
ingly  goes  to  P,  the  writer  who  used  the  word  “ created,’* 
leaving  J to  commence  in  the  middle  of  the  verse.  Other  dif- 
ferences of  vocabulary  are  immediately  detected,  and  side  by 
side  with  these  we  find  differences  of  representation.  It  is 
claimed  that  in  ii.  4b  ff.  the  conception  is  far  more  anthropo- 
morphic than  in  P,  since  God  here  forms  man,  and  breathes 
into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life,  etc.,  and  that  the  creative 
acts  are  here  regarded  as  having  been  performed  in  a differ- 
ent sequence  from  that  narrated  in  the  first  chapter.  Once 
this  method  is  regarded  as  correct  and  infallible,  it  becomes 
easy  to  extend  it.  If  we  consider  “ These  are  the  generations 
of  ” as  being  a phrase  characterizing  one  source  to  the  exclus- 
ion of  all  others,  if  follows  that  whenever  we  come  across  this 
phrase  we  shall  detect  the  presence  of  that  source.  Hence 
we  shall  not  only  find  P in  several  passages  in  Genesis ; but 
when  we  come  to  Num.  iii.  1 and  read  “ and  these  are  the  gene- 
rations of  Aaron  and  Moses  in  that  day  that/’  etc.,  we  shall 
recognize  his  hand. 

THE  CURRENT  DOCUMENTARY  THEORY 

These  few  slight  examples  may  suffice  to  indicate  the 
method.  Combining  the  data  afforded  by  all  the  various 
classes  of  phenomena  to  which  reference  has  been  made,  the 

1 In  references  to  Biblical  verses  the  first  and  second  halves  are 
where  necessary  distinguished  by  the  letters  a and  b respectively. 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


15 


critics  propound  a documentary  theory  which,  in  the  form 
most  widely  accepted,  is,  briefly,  as  follows : 

In  the  time  of  the  monarchy  there  were  current  two  main 
histories,  one  of  which  used  the  Tetragrammaton  from  the 
beginning  and  is  therefore  called  J,  while  the  second  used 
Elohim  either  invariably  or  at  any  rate  habitually  before  Ex. 
iii.,  and  is  therefore  called  E.  These  documents  were  very 
much  alike  in  general  style.  Indeed,  save  for  the  criterion 
afforded  by  the  Divine  appellations  and  the  striking  differ- 
ences in  the  story  of  Joseph,  it  is  usually  impossible  to  dis- 
tinguish them.  Yet  some  few  characteristics  are  noticed. 
Thus  it  is  said  that  E has  a fondness  for  angels  and  dreams ; 
that,  of  two  words  for  “ maid-servant,”  one  ( shifchah ) is 
preferred  by  J,  and  the  other,  {amah)  by  E,  and  so  on.  These 
two  narratives  were  combined  into  a composite  work  JE,  and 
passages  are  often  assigned  to  JE  when  there  is  no  ground  for 
assigning  them  specifically  to  J or  E.  In  the  course  of  com- 
bination a few  changes  were  made  by  an  editor  or  redactor 
who  sometimes  inserted  phrases  and  sometimes  even  rewrote 
a passage  on  the  basis  of  the  earlier  documents.  Later  the 
bulk  of  Deuteronomy  was  written  — probably  in  the  reign  of 
Josiah  — by  a person  or  school  who  used  JE.  This  work  is 
denoted  by  the  symbol  D.  It  was  combined  with  JE  into  a 
total  JED  by  another  redactor,  who  added  Deuteronomic 
touches  to  JE.  The  groundwork  of  the  first  four  books,  how- 
ever, does  not  come  from  any  of  these  documents,  but  from  a 
writing  that  was  composed  by  priests  in  the  priestly  interest. 
This  is  distinguished  by  the  letter  P,  and  it  is  from  this  source 
that  the  majestic  opening  of  our  Bible  is  taken.  The  priestly 
writing  is  not  itself  a unity.  On  the  contrary  it  certainly  con- 
tains portions  of  an  earlier  code  from  which  most  of  Lev. 
xvii.-xxvi.  is  derived.  This  is  called  the  Law  of  Holiness. 


16 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


and  is  distinguished  by  the  symbol  H or  FA  It  is  earlier  than 
P,  but  its  date  cannot  be  certainly  fixed.  The  main  priestly 
writing  itself  is  younger  than  Ezekiel,  and  was  composed  in 
or  after  the  Babylonian  exile.  It  was  combined  with  JED  by 
a redactor  writing  in  the  priestly  spirit,  who  occasionally 
glossed  or  modified  the  earlier  documents. 

Such  in  outline  is  the  theory.  The  finer  shadings  have  been 
omitted  for  the  sake  of  simplicity,  for  some  of  the  distinctions 
would  only  bewilder,  without  in  any  way  assisting  the  reader 
in  the  present  inquiry.  What  has  been  said,  sufficiently  indi- 
cates the  general  nature  of  the  analysis  and  of  the  grounds 
on  which  it  rests. 

THE  DEVELOPMENT  HYPOTHESIS 

We  must,  however,  glance  at  the  general  theory  of  histor- 
ical development  with  which  this  analysis  is  now  connected. 
A series  of  leading  critics  have  propounded  a hypothesis  of 
development  which,  from  the  name  of  its  two  chief  expo- 
nents, has  been  called  the  Graf-Wellhausent  theory.  Ac- 
cording to  this,  we  are  to  regard  the  documents  as  representing 
successive  stages  of  development.  The  first  two  (JE)  permit 
sacrifice  anywhere  on  an  altar  of  earth  or  stone ; and  the  prac- 
tice of  Moses,  Joshua,  the  Judges,  Saul,  and  others  conforms 
to  this.  Then  comes  Deuteronomy,  with  an  urgent  demand  for 
the  centralization  of  all  sacrificial  worship  “ at  the  place  which 
the  Lord  shall  choose  ” (i.e.  Jerusalem).  Lastly,  P can  con- 
ceive no  other  state  of  affairs  than  that  demanded  by  Deuter- 
onomy; and,  following  on  lines  first  suggested  by  Ezekiel, 
introduces  a division  of  priests  and  Levites  and  a hierarchical 
organization  that  were  unknown  alike  to  the  earlier  docu- 
ments and  to  preexilic  history. 

With  many  modern  students  this  theory  is  almost  axiomatic. 
In  their  minds  it  is  supported  by  a sort  of  compound  of  the 


7 'he  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


17 


stylistic  arguments,  the  discrepancies,  the  indications  of  post- 
Mosaic  data,  the  repetitions,  and  the  legal  and  historical 
hypotheses.  Perhaps  the  portion  of  the  theory  to  which  most 
modern  critics  assign  the  greatest  weight  is  not  the  oldest  but 
the  newest  part.  The  historical  reconstruction  is  probably  re- 
garded by  many  modern  writers  as,  if  anything,  more  firmly 
established  than  the  underlying  analysis,  which  in  its  main 
elements  is  much  older.  In  any  case  it  can  be  shown  that 
when  better  methods  of  research  are  employed  the  theory 
breaks  down  at  every  point,  and  the  succeeding  divisions  will 
be  devoted  to  outlining  those  methods  and  their  application, 
together  with  the  view  of  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  that 
arises  from  the  ruins  of  the  documentary  and  evolutionary 
theories.  - / 1 / i 


II 


THE  ANSWER  OF  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM 

In  the  examination  of  these  theories  it  is  necessary  to  take 
up  many  different  lines  of  argument,  and  it  will  be  convenient 
to  begin  with  the  evidence  of  textual  criticism.  Every  one  is 
familiar  in  his  own  experience  with  the  errors  that  arise  in 
copying.  A word  is  accidentally  left  out  or  written  a second 
time:  some  letters  of  the  original  are  illegible:  a passage  is 
omitted  through  the  copyist’s  eye  being  caught  by  a second 
occurrence  of  a phrase  that  he  has  just  written,  with  the  re- 
sult that  he  does  not  notice  the  intervening  words.  Such 
errors  inevitably  arise  in  every  text  that  depends  on  a MS. 
tradition.  To  deal  with  them,  the  science  of  textual  criticism 
has  come  into  existence.  It  consists  of  the  application  of 
common  sense  and  the  teachings  of  experience  to  textual  phe- 
nomena: and  its  application  to  all  other  MS.  texts,  sacred  or 
secular,  is  universally  admitted.  In  the  case  of  the  Pentateuch 
there  are  few  students  of  any  kind  who  would  absolutely  re- 
pudiate it. 

THE  MATERIALS  FOR  THE  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM  OF  THE 
PENTATEUCH 

What,  then,  are  the  materials  for  the  textual  criticism  of 
the  Pentateuch?  There  is,  first,  the  received  Hebrew  text  of 
the  day,  with  such  variants  as  are  embodied  in  its  marginal 
notes  or  in  MSS.  that  may  differ  from  it.  This  text  is  called 
the  Massoretic  text,  from  a word  Massorah,  meaning  “ tra- 
dition.” We  have  no  positive  information  as  to  the  date  of 
its  formation  or  the  persons  who  formed  it : but  we  do  know 


7 he  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


11) 


that  it  is  many  centuries  — in  some  cases  perhaps  nearly  two 
thousand  years  — subsequent  to  the  original  autographs  of 
the  Bible.  It  is  therefore  not  merely  possible,  but  even  prob- 
able, that  it  differs  from  them  in  many  respects.  That  this  is 
in  fact  the  case  can  be  seen  at  a glance  by  anybody  who  cares 
to  compare  those  passages  of  which  we  have  two  copies  in  the 
Hebrew  Bible  itself,  the  duplicate  Psalms  or  the  parallels  be- 
tween Chronicles  and  the  earlier  historical  books.  Half  an 
hour  with  such  a book  as  Canon  Girdlestone’s  “ Deutero- 
graphs  ”x  will  suffice  to  convince  the  English  reader  who  is 
no  Hebraist  that  there  are  numerous  divergences,  and  that  he 
must  be  prepared  to  apply  to  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament 
those  canons  which  have  long  since  been  used  in  reference  to 
the  New  Testament  and  secular  writings. 

THE  SEPTUAGINT 

Side  by  side  with  the  Massoretic  text  we  have  a number  of 
other  recensions  of  the  text  which  have  been  preserved  to  us 
in  ancient  Versions.  Of  these  the  first  Greek  version,  known 
as  the  Septuagint,  is  the  most  important.  This  was  a Jewish 
translation  made  for  the  use  of  the  Jews  of  Alexandria  before 
the  Christian  era.  It  is  still  the  Old  Testament  of  certain  sec- 
tions of  the  Christian  church.  In  the  case  of  the  Pentateuch, 
comparison  with  the  extant  Hebrew  shows  that  it  was  a very 
literal  word-for-word  translation ; but  frequently  we  come  to 
variations  of  one  kind  or  another.  On  retranslating  these 
into  Hebrew,  we  may  find  that  they  give  a better  or  a worse 
text,  and  we  may  be  able  to  see  clearly  how  the  difference 
arose.  Perhaps  this  may  best  be  clear  by  a few  instances.  In 
Gen.  xxii.  14  we  read  “ in  the  mount  of  the  Lord/'  The  Sep- 
tuagint, however,  has  “ in  the  mount  the  Lord."  On  retrans- 


1 Frowde  1894. 


20 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


lating  into  Hebrew,  we  find  that  the  consonants  are  the  same, 
but  the  vowels  are  different.  In  ancient  Hebrew  the  vowels 
were  not  written  at  all.  Therefore  the  Septuagint  here  does 
not  testify  to  a different  text : it  merely  testifies  to  a different 
way  of  reading  the  same  text,  whether  better  or  worse  we 
shall  see  at  a later  stage.  This  then  is  one  form  of  variant. 
There  are  others. 

THE  DISCREPANCY  IN  EXODUS  XVIII.  5 FF. 

In  Ex.  xviii.  we  read  how  Jethro  came  to  visit  Moses.  The 
Hebrew  text  contains  a great  difficulty.  In  verse  6 we  read 
of  his  saying  to  Moses,  “ I thy  father-in-law  Jethro  am  come.” 
Yet  in  verse  7 Moses  goes  out  to  meet  his  father-in-law,  they 
exchange  greetings,  and  subsequently  come  into  the  tent.  It 
is  by  no  means  clear  how  Jethro  could  have  spoken  to  Moses 
before  they  met.  Accordingly  the  critics  suppose  that  we  have 
here  different  documents.  One  represented  Jethro  as  coming 
to  Moses  in  the  camp:  the  other  told  of  Moses  going  out  to 
meet  his  father-in-law  and  bringing  him  to  the  camp.  Not  so 
the  Septuagint.  When  its  rendering  is  retranslated  into  He- 
brew, we  get  a text  that  gives  us  “And  one  [or,  according  to 
another  possible  pronunciation,  “ they  ”]  said  unto  Moses, 
Behold,  thy  father-in-law  Jethro  is  come,”  etc.  The  only  dif- 
ference here,  when  allowance  is  made  for  known  variations  in 
orthography,  consists  of  the  corruption  of  a single  letter,  giv- 
ing us  “ Behold  ” for  “ I.”  In  this  instance  the  Septuagint 
is  supported  by  the  old  Syriac  version  and  a copy  of  the  Sa- 
maritan, which  is  not  a version  at  all  but  a Hebrew  text  of 
the  Pentateuch.  Now,  whatever  view  we  may  ultimately  take, 
one  thing  is  certain.  Some  explanation  must  be  found  for  this 
alternative  reading.  If  the  critical  theory  at  this  point  be  cor- 
rect, what  we  must  believe  is  this : There  were  two  different 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


21 


stories.  For  some  reason  that  is  not  very  clear,  an  editor 
chose  to  compile  a third  story  from  them,  and  he  did  so  in  a 
way  that  made  nonsense.  Textual  corruption  next  set  in,  but 
it  was  of  so  felicitous  a character  that  by  the  alteration  of  a 
single  letter  it  turned  the  editor’s  nonsense  into  the  most  per- 
fect sense,  so  that  no  reader  of  the  corrupt  text  could  possibly 
detect  any  joint  or  guess  that  he  had  before  him  a corrupted 
cento  of  documents.  This  corruption  was  so  wide-spread  that 
it  affected  our  three  earliest  witnesses  to  the  text  — the  LXX,1 
the  Syriac,  and  the  Samaritan  — but  fortunately  it  is  absent 
from  the  later  Hebrew  tradition.  Is  it  not  simpler  to  suppose 
that  the  LXX  and  its  supporters  are  here  correct,  and  that  the 
whole  difficulty  has  arisen  through  the  accidental  corruption 
of  a letter  in  the  later  transmission  of  the  Hebrew  text  ? 

THE  LEGITIMACY  OF  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM 

At  this  point  it  will  be  well  to  reassure  those  who  may  find 
this  method  doubtful  or  suspicious.  There  is  a textual  criti- 
cism that  consists  of  wild  and  reckless  conjectures.  Needless 
to  say,  nothing  of  that  kind  is  here  advocated.  But  it  is  the 
fact  that  at  different  times  various  texts  have  been  regarded 
as  of  especial  authority.  The  Ancient  Versions  mostly  had  a 
more  or  less  official  character.  They  were  the  products  of  the 
best  scholarship  and  the  most  intense  religion  of  their  own 
day,  and  they  are  therefore  not  to  be  regarded  as  antagon- 
istic to  faith.  If  a reading  was  good  enough  to  be  accepted 
by  Jerome  and  embodied  in  the  Vulgate,  it  is  difficult  to  see 
how  its  acceptance  could  possibly  harm  Christianity.  If  a 
text  was  regarded  as  correct  by  the  Septuagint  or  by  one  of 
the  Aramaic  renderings  (called  Targums)  which  were  pre- 
pared for  official  use  in  the  Synagogue,  it  seems  impossible  to 
1 LXX  stands  for  Septuagint. 


22 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


imagine  that  it  could  be  destructive  of  Judaism.  The  best  and 
most  learned  men  some  fifteen  or  twenty  centuries  ago  were 
just  as  pious  as  any  of  their  modern  successors,  and  assuredly 
their  Bibles  cannot  injure  our  faith.  Hence  there  is  no 
ground  for  unreasoning  alarm  at  any  use  that  may  be  made 
of  the  Ancient  Versions.  In  this  connection  the  following 
passage  from  the  preface  to  the  Revised  Version  of  the  Old 
Testament  may  be  quoted: 

“ The  Received,  or,  as  it  is  commonly  called,  the  Massoretic 
Text  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  has  come  down  to  us 
in  manuscripts  which  are  of  no  very  great  antiquity,  and 
which  all  belong  to  the  same  family  or  recension.  That  other 
recensions  were  at  one  time  in  existence  is  probable  from  the 
variations  in  the  Ancient  Versions,  the  oldest  of  which,  namely 
the  Greek  or  Septuagint,  was  made,  at  least  in  part,  some  two 
centuries  before  the  Christian  era.  But  as  the  state  of  know- 
ledge on  the  subject  is  not  at  present  such  as  to  justify  any  at- 
tempt at  an  entire  reconstruction  of  the  text  on  the  authority 
of  the  Versions,  the  Revisers  have  thought  it  most  prudent  to 
adopt  the  Massoretic  Text  as  the  basis  of  their  work,  and  to 
depart  from  it,  as  the  Authorized  Translators  had  done,  only 
in  exceptional  cases.” 

This  conservative  attitude  was  the  only  one  possible  for  the 
revisers  — especially  as  they  combined  with  it  this  word  of 
caution  as  to  the  existence  of  recensions  other  than  the  Mas- 
soretic. But,  for  the  purpose  of  discussing  the  composition  of 
the  Pentateuch  on  internal  grounds,  this  attitude  cannot  be 
maintained.  If  the  author  in  fact  wrote  “ Behold,  thy  father- 
in-law  Jethro  is  come,”  then  it  is  the  height  of  futility  to  ar- 
gue that  we  are  face  to  face  with  a patchwork  on  the  ground 
that  the  Massoretic  text  reads  “ I thy  father-in-law,”  etc.  We 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


23 


must  first  use  all  the  available  knowledge  and  ascertain  if 
possible  what  the  author  did  write,  and  then,  and  only  then, 
can  we  begin  to  suspect  authenticity  and  tradition  on  internal 
grounds. 

THE  NEED  FOR  CAUTION 

And  here  it  is  right  to  utter  a word  of  warning.  It  does 
not  by  any  means  follow  that  because  in  some  cases  the  An- 
cient Versions  have  preserved  better  readings,  therefore  their 
readings  must  in  all  cases  be  superior.  The  Versions  may 
themselves  have  undergone  textual  corruption : or  in  a given 
passage  a particular  rendering  may  represent  an  explanation 
rather  than  a translation : or,  finally,  the  Hebrew  text  that  lay 
before  the  translators  may  have  been  intrinsically  inferior  in 
parts  to  our  present  Hebrew  text.  A scientific  textual  criti- 
cism naturally  weighs  all  these  considerations  carefully.  It 
seeks  to  ascertain  the  original  text  of  the  translation : then  it 
tries  to  find  out  what  Hebrew  the  translator  had  before  him, 
and  lastly  it  balances  the  respective  merits  of  the  various  He- 
brew readings.  Speaking  generally,  it  may  be  said  that  every 
text  preserves  some  readings  of  value.  A text  that  is  gen- 
erally inferior  to  the  other  authorities  may  in  one  or  more 
passages  have  preserved  a tradition  which  has  escaped  some 
corruption  otherwise  generally  current. 

OTHER  GREEK  VERSIONS 

The  Septuagint  is  not  the  only  ancient  Version.  There 
were  other  Greek  Versions,  those  of  Aquila,  Symmachus,  and 
Theodotion  being  the  best  known.  These  have  not  been  pre- 
served to  us,  but  notes  of  their  readings  in  particular  passages 
are  extant,  and  often  contain  extremely  valuable  information. 
Aquila  in  particular  is  a singularly  conscientious  guide. 
There  is  a theory  that  he  was  a disciple  of  Rabbi  Akiba’s. 


24 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


This  rabbi  was  remarkable  for  the  great  weight  he  assigned 
to  every  particle  of  the  text,  and  this  characteristic  is  reflected 
in  Aquila’s  translation.  The  rendering  is  marked  by  an  al- 
most incredible  defiance  of  Greek  grammar  in  the  interests 
of  absolute  literalness,  and  consequently  it  is  usually  possible 
to  feel  the  utmost  certainty  as  to  the  Hebrew  text  followed  by 
this  translator. 

THE  " PRIESTS  ” OF  EXODUS  XIX 

An  interesting  and  important  instance  of  the  value  that 
sometimes  attaches  to  Aquila’s  readings  is  to  be  found  in  Ex. 
xix.  In  verses  22  and  24  we  meet  with  “ priests.”  The  events 
recorded  took  place  before  the  institution  of  the  priesthood  of 
Aaron,  and  accordingly  there  has  always  been  difficulty  about 
the  passage.  The  old  view  was  that  before  the  institution  of 
the  priesthood  the  first-born  acted  as  priests:  but  they  bear 
this  title  nowhere  else,  and  the  hypothesis  is  not  in  the  least 
probable.  The  critics  argue  for  the  documentary  theory. 
‘ Here,’  they  say,  ‘ is  a document  that  knows  of  priests.  No 
priesthood  has  yet  been  instituted,  therefore  this  is  a different 
document  from  those  that  tell  of  the  priesthood  of  Aaron  and 
his  sons,  and  it  embodies  a different  view  of  the  early  history.’ 
Recently,  however,  a note  of  Aquila’s  has  been  published 
showing  that  in  verse  22,  he  read  “ elders,”  not  “ priests.”  Of 
his  reading  in  verse  24  no  record  has  been  preserved:  but 
it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  he  had  the  same  word  in  both 
verses.  In  Hebrew  this  word  “ elders  ” differs  from  “ priests  ” 
by  only  two  letters.  So  it  is  easy  to  see  that  one  text  or  the 
other  is  due  to  a slight  corruption.  If  we  read  the  chapter 
with  a view  to  ascertaining  which  of  the  two  readings  fits  the 
context,  we  find  that  in  the  earlier  portion  the  elders  had  been 
prominent  and  that  a mention  of  them  is  required  here.  Ac- 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


25 


cordingly  it  becomes  evident  that  the  unintelligible  “ priests  ” 
is  not  due  to  a difference  of  source  or  to  the  existence  of  an 
otherwise  unmentioned  sacerdotal  class,  but  to  an  error  of 
two  letters. 

AQUILA  AND  THE  TETRAGRAMMATON 

, Before  leaving  Aquila,  one  other  feature  of  his  translation 
must  be  mentioned.  His  extreme  conscientiousness  led  him 
never  to  render  the  Tetragrammaton,  but  simply  to  transcribe 
it,  and  that  in  the  old  Hebrew  characters.  This  gives  his 
testimony  on  this  point  peculiar  importance,  for  the  applica- 
tion of  such  a principle  makes  it  certain  that  no  desire  to 
paraphrase  could  have  led  him  to  alter  the  usage  of  the  He- 
brew text  he  followed. 

OTHER  VERSIONS 

Other  translations  of  importance  are  the  Syriac,  the  Vul- 
gate, and  the  Aramaic  paraphrases  called  Targums.  The  Sa- 
maritan Pentateuch  is  a recension  of  the  Hebrew  text  that 
occasionally  preserves  valuable  readings,  but  it  cannot  com- 
pare with  the  Septuagint  or  the  Vulgate  as  an  authority  for 
the  correction  of  the  Massoretic  text. 

ASTRUC’s  CLUE  TESTED 

Other  remarks  about  textual  criticism  will  fall  to  be  made 
later.  For  the  present  it  is  desirable  to  test  the  worth  of 
Astruc’s  clue  and  the  documentary  theory  based  on  it.  While 
the  evidence  of  textual  criticism  supplies  the  most  important 
material  for  checking  the  soundness  of  that  clue,  it  does  not 
provide  the  only  material,  and  it  will  be  convenient  to  consider 
other  relevant  facts  at  the  same  time  without  concentrating 
on  the  textual  evidence  to  the  exclusion  of  everything  else. 
The  following  extract  from  the  writer’s  “ Essays  in  Penta- 
teuchal  Criticism  ” gives  tests  that  are  based  solely  on  the 


26 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


Massoretic  Hebrew  — without  reference  to  the  data  of  the 
Versions  or  the  Samaritan. 

THE  IMPOSSIBILITY  OF  EFFECTING  A CLEAN  DIVISION 

“ 1.  It  is  not,  in  fact,  possible  to  divide  the  early  portions  of 
the  Pentateuch  into  three  main  sources  (P,  E,  and  J),  each 
of  which  shall  be  self-consistent  in  the  use  of  the  designa- 
tions of  God  and  shall  also  conform  to  a uniform  practice. 

“(1)  As  to  P:  The  Tetragrammaton  occurs  in  two  pas- 

sages of  P (Gen.  xvii.  1 and  xxi.  lb).  In  both  cases  a re- 
dactor or  copyist  has  to  be  invoked  to  get  rid  of  it. 

“(2)  As  to  E:  The  Tetragrammaton  occurs  in  four 
passages  of  E (Gen.  xv.  1,  2;  xxii.  11;  xxvii.  7b).  In  all 
these  cases  recourse  is  had  as  usual  to  a redactor. 

“(3)  As  to  J : There  are  here  two  separate  lines  of 
argument. 

j “{&)  The  discrepancy  as  to  the  use  of  the  Tetragramma- 
ton which  the  critical  theory  was  designed  to  remove  reap- 
pears, though  on  a smaller  scale.  J uses  the  Tetragrammaton 
before  (according  to  J)  it  was  known.  His  statement  is 
that  after  the  birth  of  Enosh  men  began  to  call  upon  the 
name  of  the  Lord  (Gen.  iv.  26).  Yet  not  only  does  the  Tet- 
ragrammaton occur  very  freely  in  the  narrative  of  the  pre- 
ceding chapters,  but  it  is  actually  put  into  the  mouth  of  Eve, 
the  grandmother  of  Enosh,  long  before  Seth,  his  father,  had 
been  born.  She  is  made  to  say,  ‘ I have  gotten  a man  with 
the  Lord"  (iv.  1).  How  is  this  possible  on  the  critical  the- 
ory? Why  is  it  conceivable  that  the  author  of  J could  do 
that  which,  ex  hypothesi,  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  could 
not? 

i((b)  . ...  J uses  Elohim  in  many  passages,  and  only  a 
few  of  these  have  been  noted  by  Mr.  Carpenter.  We  have 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


27 


observed  the  following:  Gen.  iii.  1,  3,  5;  iv.  25  (contrast  iv. 
1)  ; vii.  9;  ix.  27;  xxvi.  24  (in  a Divine  revelation  where  the 
Name  ought  most  certainly  to  appear  on  the  critical  theory)  ; 
xxxii.  29  (28)  ; xxxiii.  5,  10,  11;  xxxix.  9;  xliii.  23,  29;  xliv. 
16;  xlv.  9;  xlviii.  15  (twice)  ; 1.  24.  We  have  seen  that  in 
some  instances  Mr.  Carpenter  is  reduced  to  postulating  re- 
dactors, in  others  he  invents  brainspun  subtleties  to  account 
for  the  word,  while  his  silence  in  yet  others  indicates  that  he 
has  not  considered  the  phenomena  they  present.” 

THE  REDACTOR  S CONDUCT 

“ 2.  An  even  more  serious  objection  is  to  be  found  in  the 
divisions  which  the  critics  are  compelled  to  effect  in  order 
to  carry  through  their  theory.  It  is  one  thing  to  suggest 
that  a continuous  passage  like  Gen.  i.  1-ii.  3,  or  xi.  1-9,  or 
xiv.  may  be  ultimately  derived  from  a separate  source ; it  is 
quite  another  to  postulate  such  proceedings  as  are  attributed 
to  the  redactors  of  the  critical  case.  The  following  instances 
are  limited  to  those  in  which  the  appellations  of  the  Deity 
are  the  sole  or  determining  criterion : in  xvi.  the  use  of  the 
Tetragrammaton  in  verse  2 compels  Mr.  Carpenter  to  wrench 
lb  and  2 from  a P context  and  assign  them  to  J ; in  xix.,  verse 
29  is  torn  from  a J chapter  in  which  it  fits  perfectly,  to  be 
given  to  P ; in  xx.  the  last  verse  is  assigned  to  a redactor, 
though  all  the  rest  of  the  chapter  goes  to  E,  and  the  verse  is 
required  for  the  explanation  of  17 ; in  xxii.,  verses  14-18  go 
to  redactors  because  the  story  is  assigned  to  E (a  redactor 
being  responsible  for  the  Tetragrammaton  in  11).  An  even 
more  flagrant  instance  occurs  in  xxviii.  21,  where  Mr.  Car- 
penter is  compelled  to  scoop  out  the  words  * and  the  Lord 
will  be  my  God  ’ and  assign  them  to  J,  the  beginning  and  end 
of  the  verse  going  to  E.  What  manner  of  man  was  this  re- 


28 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


dactor  who  constructed  a narrative  on  these  strange  princi- 
ples? In  xxxi.,  verse  3 has  to  go  to  a redactor  because  the 
preceding  and  subsequent  verses  belong  to  E:  yet  that  gen- 
tleman actually  postulates  the  redactor’s  work  by  referring 
to  the  statement  of  3 in  verse  5.  However,  he  receives  com- 
pensation in  xxxii.,  where  verse  30  is  wrenched  from  a J 
context  for  his  enrichment,  though  verse  31  (J)  cannot  be 
understood  without  it. 

“ During  the  later  chapters  there  are  no  instances,  because 
the  Tetragrammaton  occurs  in  Genesis  only  once  after  xxxix. 
23,  so  that  ‘ a peculiar  revision  ’ has  to  be  postulated  to  jus- 
tify the  analysis  during  the  remainder  of  the  book.  It  must 
be  remembered  further  that  we  have  confined  ourselves  to 
flagrant  cases  where  the  Divine  appellations  are  the  sole  or 
determining  criterion:  there  are  others  where  it  is  one  of  the 
criteria  (e.g.  the  assignment  of  v.  29,  the  division  of  the 
flood  story).”1 

THE  TEXTUAL  OBJECTION 

These  lines  of  argument  were  followed  by  a third  — that 
supplied  by  the  textual  evidence  as  to  the  occurrences  of  the 
Divine  appellations  in  the  book  of  Genesis.  The  discussion 
was  too  detailed  and  elaborate  to  be  transcribed  here.  For 
the  present  purpose  the  following  extract  from  an  article  in 
the  Churchman 2 for  April,  1909,  will  be  sufficient.  Neverthe- 
less, the  point  is  of  so  much  importance  that  many  readers 
may  desire  to  see  the  fuller  proof,  and  in  that  case  they  are 
referred  to  Chapter  I.  of  “ Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.” 
“ Yet,  had  the  critics  investigated  the  textual  material,  they 
would  have  found  that  Hebrew  manuscripts,  the  Samaritan 

1 Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism,  pp.  7-9. 

1 In  all  cases  the  references  to  the  Churchman  are  to  the  London 
magazine  of  that  name  published  by  Elliot  Stock. 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


29 


Pentateuch,  and  the  ancient  Versions  frequently  differ  from 
the  received  Hebrew  text.  Among  Septuagintal  scholars  an 
attempt  has  been  made  to  minimize  the  force  of  this,  so  far 
as  the  ancient  Greek  Version  is  concerned,  by  supposing  that 
the  Alexandrian  translators  often  wrote  ‘ God  ’ to  avoid  the 
Tetragrammaton  in  their  Hebrew  original.  This  would  have 
been  rather  pointless,  having  regard  to  the  fact  that  they 
did  not  transliterate  the  Name  itself,  but  substituted  icvpio<; 
(‘Lord’);  but  it  is  not  necessary  to  rely  on  this  considera- 
tion to  vindicate  the  Greek  text,  because  extant  Hebrew 
variants  frequently  confirm  the  Septuagintal  authorities.  So 
do  the  other  Versions,  including  even  Aquila  the  orthodox. 
The  testimony  of  this  translator  is  peculiarly  valuable,  for 
two  different  reasons:  first,  no  mistake  is  possible  in  his  case, 
since  he  refused  to  translate  the  Tetragrammaton  at  all,  but 
wrote  the  Name  in  the  old  Hebrew  characters ; secondly,  he 
was  in  close  touch  with  authoritative  Jewish  exegesis,  so 
that  a reading  of  his  represents  the  best  Jewish  text  of  the 
day. 

“ Now,  in  most  cases  where  there  are  variants  no  certain 
inference  can  be  drawn  as  to  the  original  reading.  Either 
word  would  fit  the  context  as  well  as  the  other,  just  as  in  a 
history  of  our  own  times  it  would  frequently  be  possible  to 
use  ‘ the  King,’  or  ‘ Edward  VII/  or  ‘ King  Edward  ’ indif- 
ferently ; but  there  are  other  cases  where  we  have  means  of 
judging  between  the  two  readings  on  their  merits,  and  here 
it  sometimes  happens  that  we  can,  for  one  reason  or  another, 
prove  the  received  Hebrew  text  to  be  wrong.  For  example, 
in  Gen.  xvi.  11  the  explanation  of  the  name  of  Ishma*/,  ‘ be- 
cause the  Lord  hath  heard/  cannot  be  right,  for  the  explana- 
tion demands  the  name  Ishmayah,  not  IshmaW.  But  one 
Hebrew  manuscript,  the  Lucianic  recension  of  the  LXX,  and 


30 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


the  old  Latin  read  ‘ God.’  ‘ Ishma el  ’ is,  then,  parallel  to 
Israel  and  Peni el,  and  we  see  that  in  this  instance  the  re- 
ceived text  has  the  inferior  reading,  a;nd  that  for  some  reason 
or  other  the  Tetragrammaton  has  ousted  the  word  elohim." 

SOME  ILLUSTRATIONS 

“ It  will  be  well  to  give  a few  examples  of  the  way  in 
which  these  variants  affect  the  documentary  theory.  Thus, 
in  Gen.  ii.  4b,  5,  7,  8,  it  is  known  that  the  original  LXX  had 
‘ God  ’ only,  and  that  Origin  in  each  case  added  ‘ Lord  ’ to 
bring  it  into  accord  with  the  Hebrew  text  of  his  day.  A 
glance  at  any  higher  critical  discussion  of  4 J’s 3 ‘ Creation 
story  ’ will  reveal  the  revplutionary  nature  of  these  facts. 
Again,  in  iv.  1 (J)  the  LXX  and  other  ancient  authorities 
read  ‘ God  ’ for  ‘ Lord/  and  in  view  of  iv.  26  it  cannot  be 
doubted  that  this  is  correct.  In  the  Flood  story,  the  original 
text  with  regard  to  the  Divine  appellations  is  quite  uncertain. 
In  xix.  29  (P)  the  best  Septuagintal  text  is:  ‘And  it  came  to 
pass,  when  the  Lord  destroyed  all  the  cities  of  the  plain,  God 
remembered  Abraham,  and  sent  Lot  out  of  the  midst  of  the 
overthrow,  when  the  Lord  destroyed/  etc.  In  xx.  4 (E) 
fourteen  Hebrew  manuscripts  have  the  Tetragrammaton  for 
the  Hebrew  ‘Lord/  In  xxi.  2b  (P)  the  LXX  has  ‘Lord' 
as  also  in  6 (E).  It  would  be  possible  to  multiply  instances 
almost  indefinitely,  but  these  are  sufficient  to  illustrate  my 
point.  The  textual  authorities  continually  introduce  the  Tet- 
ragrammaton into  P and  E.” 

THE  IMPORTANCE  OF  THE  ARGUMENT 

“ It  is  thus  singularly  easy  to  prove  that  the  present  doc- 
umentary theory  cannot  be  supported,  and  I doubt  whether 
any  higher  critic  could  be  found  to  undertake  the  defence  of 
the  Massoretic  text  in  this  matter.  But  it  would  still  be  pos- 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


31 


sible  to  suggest  that  a documentary  theory  based  on  Ex.  vi. 
3 was  correct,  and  that  if  we  had  the  original  text  of  Genesis 
it  would  be  feasible  to  carry  out  a division  on  this  basis, 
though  it  might  not  coincide  in  all  cases  with  the  present  crit- 
ical division.  I have  even  known  an  eminent  critic  to  take 
this  view  in  private  correspondence.  Before  disposing  of  it, 
I wish  to  point  out  what  is  involved  in  even  so  apparently 
slight  a concession  to  the  evidence  of  facts.  The  critics  have 
throughout  acted  on  the  assumption  that  the  Hebrew  text 
was  entirely  trustworthy  in  this  matter.  If  the  division  is 
wrong,  the  whole  of  their  linguistic  case  as  hitherto  formu- 
lated falls  with  it.  The  lists  of  words,  the  lexicography  ex- 
traordinary, in  some  cases  even  the  linguistic  history,  depend 
primarily  on  this  division.  Probably  the  same  would  be  true 
of  their  history  of  religion,  but  nothing  definite  could  be  said 
about  this  unless  they  were  prepared  to  put  forward  a re- 
vised division  showing  what  changes  they  thought  necessary 
in  the  light  of  these  facts.”  1 

THE  DISCUSSION  IN  THE  EXPOSITORY  TIMES 

The  writer’s  treatment  of  this  question  first  appeared  in 
the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  January,  1909.  It  led  to  a discus- 
sion in  the  Expository  Times  which  made  the  weakness  of 
the  critical  position  sun-clear.  The  Rev.  A.  P.  Cox  sent  a 
note  to  the  May  number,  asking  for  a reference  to  “ a book 
or  article  in  which  these  matters  are  dealt  with  from  the 
standpoint  of  those  who  accept  the  critical  division  based  on 
Ex.  vi.  3.”  Principal  Skinner  attempted  to  negotiate  the 
question  in  the  same  number.  He  was  unable  to  refer  to  any 
work  which  treated  of  the  point,  and  sought  to  deal  with  the 
matter  as  best  he  could.  Unfortunately  he  had  no  sufficient 

irThe  Churchman,  April,  1909,  pp.  282-284. 


32 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


acquaintance  with  the  facts  and  had  clearly  not  read  the  ar- 
ticle he  was  endeavoring  to  answer.  This  placed  him  at  an 
undeniable  though  self-imposed  disadvantage.  But  it  did  not 
prevent  him  from  making  a number  of  statements  which  he 
subsequently  failed  to  support  in  cross-examination  or  from 
depreciating  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  article,  which  he  obviously 
had  not  read.  Thus  he  asserted  that  the  LXX  differed  from 
the  Massoretic  text  in  Genesis  in  forty-nine  instances,  sug- 
gested that  this  might  be  largely  due  to  the  errors  of  Greek 
scribes,  and  so  on.  The  present  writer  replied  in  the  July 
number  of  the  Expository  Times.  In  transcribing  the  ma- 
terial portions  of  that  reply,  page  references  to  “ Essays  in 
Pentateuchal  Criticism  ” are  inserted  in  addition  to  the  orig- 
inal references  to  the  pages  of  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  Jan- 
uary, 1909. 

“ In  Gen.  xvi.  11  an  explanation  of  the  name  Ishmael  is 
given  in  which  the  Tetragrammaton  is  used.  But  the  Luci- 
anic  LXX,  the  Old  Latin  and  one  Hebrew  MS.  read  Elohim. 

“ 1.  Dr.  Skinner  says  it  is  reasonable  to  expect  that  Jew- 
ish scribes  would  be  more  careful  in  this  matter  than  Greek 
copyists.  But  this  instance  shows  that  the  variant  is  a He- 
brew variant,  for  the  mistakes  of  Greek  copyists  could  not 
possibly  influence  a Hebrew  MS.  I therefore  submit  that 
little  reliance  can  be  placed  on  this  argument.  For  numerous 
other  examples,  see  [Essays,  pp.  14-15,  36  f.  = Bibliotheca  Sa- 
cra,]  pp.  128-130,  150  ff. ; and  for  a further  body  of  evidence 
drawn  from  the  support  of  other  Versions,  see  [Essays,  pp. 
15  f.  = Bib.  Sac.]  pp.  130  f.  Once  the  fact  that  the  Greek 
rests  on  Hebrew  variants  has  been  established  in  a number 
of  cases,  a presumption  arises  that  it  does  so  in  other  cases 
where  no  independent  testimony  is  preserved ; and  a case  is 
made  for  further  investigation. 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


33 


" 2.  Dr.  Skinner  further  thinks  that  significance  attaches 
to  the  fact  that  in  a great  majority  of  instances  the  LXX 
substitutes  God  for  the  Tetragrammaton  of  M.  T.1  To  this 
there  seem  to  be  two  answers:  (1)  If  we  regard  the  Tetra- 

grammaton as  original  in  all  cases  of  difference,  this  canon 
must  make  us  suspect  M.  T.  wherever  any  Version  substi- 
tutes it  for  Elohim  or  some  other  word,  and  I admit  that 
in  all  such  cases  a question  does  arise.  But  in  Genesis  this, 
of  course,  means  that  the  Tetragrammaton  will  have  to  be  in- 
troduced into  numerous  passages  of  ‘ E ’ and  ‘ P.’  (2)  In 

some  cases  where  there  are  differences  the  Elohim  of  the 
Versions  is  demonstrably  preferable  to  the  Tetragrammaton 
of  M.  T.  I instance  Gen.  xvi.  11  where  the  name  IshmaW 
requires  Elohim  in  the  explanation  (cp.  Israel,  Peniel).  The 
Tetragrammaton  would  require  Ishma  yah  as  the  name. 
Here,  again,  other  instances  will  be  found  in  [Essays,  pp. 
16  ff.  = Bib.  Sac.]  pp.  131  ff.  Consequently  we  cannot  hold 
that  the  variants  are  all  due  to  a desire  to  avoid  the  Name  of 
God.  It  would  rather  seem  that  some  readings  are  due  to  a 
tendency  of  M.  T.  to  substitute  the  Tetragrammaton  for 
Elohim. 

u 3.  Dr.  Skinner  says  that  the  LXX  differs  from  M.  T.  in 
forty-nine  cases.  But  in  an  enormous  number  of  passages 
some  Septuagintal  authority,  e.g.  Lucian  in  Gen.  xvi.  11,  — 
sometimes  only  a single  cursive  — differs  from  the  ordinary 
LXX  reading.  By  comparing  extant  Hebrew  variants  which 
confirm  some  of  the  Septuagintal  variants,  I have  shown 
([Essays,  p.  36  f.  = Bib.  Sac.]  p.  150  f.)  that  importance  at- 
taches to  these.  Has  Dr.  Skinner  included  all  such  cases  in 
his  forty-nine? 

“ 4.  It  used  to  be  thought  that  the  M.  T.  usage  as  to  the 
1 M.  T.  stands  for  Massoretic  Text. 


34 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


Divine  appellations  furnished  a criterion  for  the  analysis  of 
Genesis.  Dr.  Skinner  describes  the  point  as  one  ‘ of  consid- 
erable, though  not  of  vital  importance  in  its  bearing  on  the 
criticism  of  the  Hexateuch/  though  he  also  says  that  it  is 
now  ‘ but  one  element  ( and  in  the  opinion  of  many  critics 
a very  subordinate  element)  in  the  analysis  of  the  Hexa- 
teuch.’  Now  I think  that  by  throwing  various  points  into 
question  form  I can  focus  attention  on  essentials.  I accord- 
ingly ask  your  readers  to  put  to  themselves  the  following 
questions : — 

“(a)  Given  the  fact  (proved  in  the  passages  of  my  arti- 
cle cited  in  1,  2,  and  3 above)  that  the  Massoretic  Text  is 
manifestly  insecure  in  an  enormous  number  of  places,  and 
demonstrably  wrong  in  at  any  rate  some  of  these,  is  it  possi- 
ble to  maintain  that  on  the  basis  of  that  text  Genesis  should 
be  divided  (mainly)  into  three  sources,  one  of  which  uses 
the  Tetragrammaton,  while  the  other  two  do  not? 

“(b)  Should  redactors  and  glossators  be  postulated  to 
help  out  that  analysis  by  removing  the  Tetragrammaton 
from  passages  of  ‘E’  and  ‘ P,’  or  Elohim  from  passages  of 
‘ J ’ ( [Essays,  p.  7 f.  — Bib.  Sac.]  p.  122  f.)  ? 

“(c)  Should  divisions  into  sources  ever  be  made  on  this 
basis  only  ( [Essays,  p.  8 f . = Bib.  Sac.]  p.  123  f.)  ? 

“(d)  Should  ‘ J ’ be  subdivided  into  a ‘ Je  ’ and  a ‘ Jj  ’ on 
such  a basis? 

“(e)  Should  the  current  analysis  be  maintained  in  cases 
where  it  rests  on  very  little  more  than  the  Tetragrammaton? 
For  instance,  the  bulk  of  Gen.  xx.  is  assigned  to  ‘ E.’  But 
in  verse  4 fourteen  Hebrew  MSS.  have  the  Tetragrammaton 
which  is  here  obviously  appropriate.  The  analysis  is  sup- 
ported by  the  statement  that  of  the  two  terms  for  * maid- 
servant ’ the  ‘ E ’ word  is  used  (ver.  17).  But  the  4 J * word 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


35 

also  occurs  (ver.  14),  and  is  assigned  to  a redactor.  Should 
such  a piece  of  analysis  be  maintained  ? 

“(/)  As  already  stated  Dr.  Skinner  says  that  the  clue  is 
now  ‘ in  the  opinion  of  many  critics  a very  subordinate  ele- 
ment in  the  analysis/  Is  it  possible  to  refer  me  to  the  ex- 
pression of  such  an  opinion  in  the  published  writings  of 
Wellhausen,  or  Kuenen,  or  Dr.  Driver,  or  in  Gunkel’s 
Genesis,  or  any  other  authoritative  edition  of  Genesis  by  a 
member  of  the  Graf-Wellhausen  school? 

“ 5.  Dr.  Skinner’s  extreme  modesty  is  responsible  for  my 
next  point.  He  writes : ‘ I do  not  happen  to  know  of  any 

work  which  deals  exhaustively  with  the  subject  from  the  crit- 
ical standpoint.’  Then  he  proceeds  to  indicate  generally  what 
he  ‘ imagines  to  be  the  view  taken  by  adherents  of  the  preva- 
lent documentary  hypothesis.’  It  must  not  be  inferred  that 
Dr.  Skinner  is  a writer  who  has  no  resources  save  those  of 
his  imagination.  On  the  contrary,  he  is  one  of  the  foremost 
exponents  of  the  hypothesis  in  question,  and  when  he  says 
that  he  does  not  ‘ happen  to  know  ’ any  work,  we  may  safely 
conclude  that  there  is  no  such  work.  That  is  to  say,  although 
this  particular  clue  has  been  used  for  a century  and  a half, 
those  who  used  it  have  not  considered  whether  or  not  it  is 
textually  sound.  It  is  surely  remarkable  that  by  adopting 
Septuagintal  readings  in  three  or  perhaps  four  passages  the 
clue  disappears  altogether  ([Essays,  pp.  44-56  = Bib.  Sac.] 
pp.  158-170),  for  it  does  not  exist  in  the  Greek  Bible.  And 
in  the  test  passage  Ex.  vi.  3,  the  LXX  is  supported  by  the 
Syriac,  Vulgate,  Onkelos,  and  a Karaite  MS.  Do  not  these 
facts  deserve  consideration  ? ” 1 

‘The  Expository  Times,  July,  1909,  pp.  473-475. 


36 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


PROFESSOR  SCHLOGL’S  CONTRIBUTION 

To  this  no  reply  was  made.  Dr.  Skinner’s  statements 
were  in  fact  incapable  of  being  substantiated,  but  a couple  of 
months  later  (September,  1909)  Professor  Schlogl  took  up 
the  debate  with  a note  in  which  he  set  out  the  results  of 
studies  in  the  Old  Testament  seminar  at  Vienna  as  to  the 
occurrences  of  the  Divine  appellations  from  Gen.  i.  1 to  Ex. 
iii.  12.  His  results  are  as  follows: 

The  Tetragrammaton  alone  occurs  148  times  in  the  Masso- 
retic  text  of  Gen.  iv.  1-Ex.  iii.  7 inclusive.  In  118  places 
other  texts  have  either  God  or  Lord  God.  Elohim  alone  oc- 
curs 179  times  in  the  Massoretic  text  of  Gen.  i.  1-Ex.  iii.  12. 
In  59  passages  other  texts  have  Lord  (in  47  cases  Lord 
Elohim)  ; but  those  texts  which  have  Elohim  instead  of  the 
Tetragrammaton  are  in  Professor  Schlogl’s  opinion  less  im- 
portant. Both  words  occur  together  in  the  M.  T.  of  Gen.  ii. 
4 to  iii.  23  twenty  times;  but  there  is  only  one  passage  (iii. 
1)  in  which  all  the  texts  are  unanimous  on  the  point.  After 
some  further  discussion  the  professor  concludes  that  “ it  is 
consequently  quite  unscientific  to  determine  the  analysis  of 
a source  by  the  names  of  God.”  Nothing  further  was  heard 
from  Dr.  Skinner,  nor  was  any  defense  forthcoming  of  the 
statement  that  the  LXX  differs  from  the  Massoretic  text 
in  only  forty-nine  instances.  Owing  to  the  supreme  import- 
ance of  this  point  and  to  the  conviction  with  which  Astruc’s 
disciples  adhere  to  the  clue,  it  has  been  thought  desirable  to 
follow  the  Expository  Times  discussion  at  some  length. 

dr.  skinner’s  "genesis” 

It  is  unhappily  necessary  to  add  that  Dr.  Skinner  has  since 
published  a commentary  on  Genesis  in  which  he  substantially 
repeats  what  he  said  in  the  Expository  Times  without  taking 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


37 


cognizance  of  the  facts  and  arguments  urged  by  Professor 
Schlogl  and  the  present  writer.  Thus  he  takes  no  notice  what- 
ever of  the  Hebrew  variants  or  of  Professor  Schlogl’s  figures, 
and  proceeds  on  the  assumption  that  there  are  not  more  than 
49  or  50  variants  in  Genesis  and  repeats  the  argument  about 
the  probabilities  of  error  in  Greek  texts.  As  his  preface  is 
dated  as  late  as  April,  1910,  the  discussion  raises  issues  that 
are  too  grave  to  be  considered  here,  but  a full  reply  will  be 
found  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  October,  1910. 

PROFESSOR  toy's  ADMISSIONS 

On  the  other  hand  it  is  gratifying  to  be  able  to  note  that 
one  of  the  most  prominent  American  critics  has  frankly 
abandoned  the  celebrated  clue.  In  the  Christian  Register  for 
April  28,  1910,  Professor  C.  H.  Toy,  after  stating  the  present 
writer’s  contention  adds  the  following  significant  remarks: 
“ While  the  point  calls  for  a more  thorough  examination  than 
has  yet  been  given  it,  the  conclusion  just  stated  is  not  out  of 
keeping  with  the  tone  of  modern  criticism.  As  is  well  known, 
critics  generally  hold  that  our  Hebrew  text  has  suflfered  great- 
ly from  scribes  and  editors  in  the  process  of  transmission.  It  is 
agreed  that  divine  names  have  been  changed  in  Chronicles, 
Psalms,  and  elsewhere,  why  not  in  the  Pentateuch  ?” 

OTHER  TESTS  OF  THE  CLUE 

It  may  be  added  that  in  Ex.  vi.  3 the  most  important  Ver- 
sions supported  by  a tenth-century  Hebrew  MS.  preserve  a 
reading  that  differs  from  that  of  the  Massoretic  text  by  a 
single  letter,  and  alters  the  statement  from  a denial  of  the 
knowledge  of  the  Tetragrammaton  to  a denial  of  its  revela- 
tion. According  to  this  text,  God  says  of  his  Name  that  he 
did  not  make  it  known  to  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob.  It 
will  be  seen  hereafter  that  this  makes  a considerable  differ- 


38 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


ence  to  the  sense.  Other  tests  of  the  theory  are  supplied  by 
evidence  of  the  pre-Mosaic  date  of  certain  portions  of  Gene- 
sis and  by  the  intrinsic  impossibility  of  the  analysis,  even 
when  not  based  on  the  appellations  of  the  Deity.  It  will  be 
necessary  to  consider  these  points  hereafter,  and  therefore 
this  reference  must  suffice  for  the  present.  Yet  the  following 
summary  may  be  quoted : 

“To  sum  up:  the  famous  clue  provided  by  Ex.  vi.  3 lead- 
ing to  the  division  of  the  earlier  portions  of  the  Pentateuch 
into  three  self-consistent  documents,  J,  E,  and  P,  of  which 
J uses  the  Tetragrammaton  while  E and  P do  not,  breaks 
down  for  five  different  reasons : First,  no  such  division  can 

in  fact  be  effected.  Secondly,  in  so  far  as  it  is  effected,  it 
postulates  a series  of  redactors  whose  alleged  proceedings 
are  unintelligible  and  inconceivable.  Thirdly,  in  an  enor- 
mous proportion  of  cases  no  reliance  can  be  placed  on  the 
readings  of  the  Massoretic  text  with  regard  to  the  Divine 
appellations.  Fourthly,  the  reading  adopted  by  the  higher 
critics  in  Ex.  vi.  3 is  almost  certainly  wrong.  Fifthly,  the 
documentary  theory  founded  on  this  ‘ clue  ’ does  not  account 
for  the  frequent  traces  of  pre-Mosaic  date,  and  postulates 
the  most  ludicrous  divisions  even  where  nothing  turns  on 
the  appellations  of  the  Deity.”  1 

THE  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  HIGHER  CRITICS 

It  has  been  necessary  to  go  into  this  question  at  considera- 
ble length  because  of  its  great  importance.  The  destruction 
of  the  critical  case  on  this  matter  means  that  for  a century 
and  a half  the  critics  have  been  following  a false  clue.  Form- 
erly they  used  to  claim  that  their  results  must  necessarily  be 
correct  because  they  had  followed  a true  clue.  In  the  Ex - 
1 Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism,  p.  44. 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


39 


pository  Times  for  May,  1909,  Dr.  Skinner  wrote  as  follows: 
“ It  is  not  easy  to  believe  that  the  clue  which  led, to  the  dis- 
covery of  so  many  affinities,  connexions,  and  diversities  was 
altogether  fallacious;  but  even  if  ,it  were  proved  to  be  so,  it 
would  not  be  the  first  time  that  a wrong  clue  has  led  to  true 
results.  The  discovery  of  America  is  none  the  less  solid 
achievement  because  Columbus  sailed  for  India.  The  crit- 
ical theory  is  a hypothesis,  whose  justification  lies  in  its  ca- 
pacity to  coordinate  all  the  phenomena  of  a very  intricate 
problem.  Whether  the  hypothesis  is  sound  or  the  reverse  is 
not  now  the  question ; but  it  is  clear  that  it  is  not  invalidated 
by  the  demonstration  that  a few  of  the  facts  which  it  set  out 
to  explain  are  less  certain  than  was  imagined.”  The  com- 
parison with  Columbus  is  altogether  typical  of  the  attitude 
adopted  by  the  higher  critics  towards  their  own  conclusions. 
Hereafter  we  shall  see  whether  the  theory  does  or  does  not 
“ coordinate  all  the  phenomena  of  a very  intricate  problem.” 
But  for  the  present  we  are  concerned  with  the  attitude  to- 
wards the  clue.  Formerly  the  results  were  true  because  the 
clue  was  also  true : now  “ it  is  not  easy  to  believe  ” that  it 
“ was  altogether  fallacious ; but  even  if  it  were  proved  to  be 
so,  it  would  not  be  the  first  time  that  a wrong  clue  has  led  to 
true  results.”  That  is,  the  critics  are  (in  their  own  opinion) 
right:  either  because  their  case  was  sound,  or,  failing  that, 
in  spite  of  the  fact  that  it  was  unsound.  This  is  certainly 
suggestive  of  the  well-known  principle  “ Heads  I win,  tails 
you  lose.”  v 

THE  MEANING  OF  EXODUS  VI.  3 
The  true  meaning  of  Ex.  vi.  3 really  falls  outside  the  scope 
of  this  pamphlet.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  in  the  opinion  of  the 
writer  the  reading  “ I made  known  ” is  clearly  right.  “ The 


40 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


meaning,  which  at  first  sight  appears  to  be  the  same,  is  seen, 
in  the  light  of  comparative  evidence  as  to  primitive  ideas,  to 
be  absolutely  different.  It  appears  that  men  in  a certain 
state  of  civilization  hold  that  names  have  an  objective  exist- 
ence, and  regard  the  utterance  of  a man’s  name  by  himself 
as  giving  his  interlocutor  a certain  power  over  him.  There  is 
plenty  of  Old  Testament  evidence  to  show  that  the  early  He^ 
brews  believed  in  the  objective  existence  of  names.  It  seems 
that  here  the  utterance  of  the  Name  of  God,  not  in  any  in- 
cidental or  evasive  fashion  (as,  for  instance,  in  quotation, 
'Thus  shalt  thou  say  the  Lord/  etc.,  in  Ex.  iii.  15),  but  as 
a part  of  the  direct  formula  ‘ I am  the  Lord/  would  have  an 
esoteric  meaning  for  the  ancient  Hebrew.  The  true  effect 
of  the  phrase  was  not  to  reveal  a new  name  or  give  a fresh 
meaning  to  an  old  one,  but  to  create  a bond  between  Deity 
and  people,  and  to  give  Moses  and  the  Israelites  a direct 
pledge  that  the  whole  power  of  this  Deity  would  be  exerted 
on  their  behalf.”  1 

GLOSSES  IN  THE  MASSORETIC  TEXT 
To  return  to  the  higher  critical  theory: 

In  considering  other  portions  of  the  analysis  that  are  re- 
futed by  textual  criticism,  we  must  take  into  account  another 
department  of  that  science  — the  removal  of  glosses.  Here 
again  we  can  appeal  to  everyday  experience.  It  is  within 
everybody’s  knowledge  that  many  men  have  a tendency  to 
write  notes  in  their  books.  In  an  age  of  printing  no  con- 
fusion can  arise,  but  in  the  case  of  a MS.  tradition  such  notes 
are  apt  to  be  incorporated  in  the  text.  The  testimony  of  the 
Ancient  Versions  shows  that  this  has  happened  to  a very  large 
extent  in  the  Pentateuch ; and  when  the  text  is  critically  ex- 
amined it  is  remarkable  how  many  words  can  be  removed 
xThe  Churchman,  April,  1909,  pp.  284  f. 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


4 L 


without  effecting  the  slightest  alteration  in  the  sense.  One 
word  that  appears  to  be  a gloss  in  many  of  its  occurrences  is 
“ saying.”  It  looks  as  if  in  the  original  narrative  far  more 
reliance  was  placed  on  the  inflections  of  the  voice  than  in  our 
present  text,  and  it  was  judged  unnecessary  to  insert  any 
indication  that  at  a particular  point  a fresh  speech  was  to 
begin.  Again,  the  textual  evidence  suggests  that  the  ancient 
Hebrew  narrator  in  quoting  a speech  frequently  contented 
himself  with  the  phrase  “ and  he  said,”  but  that  later  readers 
often  inserted  both  a subject  and  an  indirect  object,  giving 
“And  A said  to  B ” for  the  original  “And  he  said.”  Such 
additions  make  no  difference  to  the  sense.  They  really  cor- 
respond to  our  system  of  punctuation.  “Saying”  is  equiv- 
alent to  opening  inverted  commas : the  addition  of  the  names 
served  to  replace  in  the  written  text  the  inflections  of  the 
voice  that  the  earlier  text  akin  to  and  founded  on  oral  nar- 
rative had  postulated  as  self-evident.  As  a rule  no  import- 
ance attaches  to  such  glosses. 

CRITICAL  BEARINGS  OF  GLOSSES 

Occasionally,  however,  the  views  of  modern  critics  have 
read  into  the  phenomena  of  the  Massoretic  text  a significance 
that  the  textual  authorities  show  to  be  vain.  It  happens 
that  a man  occasionally  has  two  designations  — Jacob-Israel 
is  the  most  important  instance.  In  such  a case  the  critics 
sometimes  postulate  different  sources  — one  of  which  used 
the  first  name  and  the  other  the  second.  Here  the  textual 
evidence  comes  in  to  show  that  we  often  have  to  deal  with 
nothing  more  important  or  significant  than  the  additions  of 
glossators.  Those  who  wish  for  further  information  on  this 
point  are  referred  to  the  discussion  of  the  story  of  Joseph  in 
the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  January,  1910,  and  to  the  case  of 
Jethro  in  “Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism”  (pp.  60  f.). 


42 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


Unfortunately  glossators  did  not  always  content  them- 
selves with  the  sort  of  note  we  have  been  considering.  They 
sometimes  undertook  to  explain  some  seeming  difficulty,  or 
to  add  a note  on  history,  or  to  provide  information  on  some 
subject.  In  course  of  time  these  additions  became  incor- 
porated in  the  text,  and  have  led  to  considerable  trouble.  For 
example,  in  Ex.  xvii.  we  are  told  how  a place  acquired  the 
name  of  “ Massah  and  Meribah.”  This  creates  difficulty,  for 
we  know  that  Kadesh  was  called  Meribah,  and  Massah  is 
never  so  designated  elsewhere.  But  the  Vulgate  did  not  find 
“ and  Meribah  ” in  the  text  of  Ex.  xvii.  Accordingly  it 
seems  that  this  phrase  — constituting  a single  word  in  He- 
brew — is  the  erroneous  addition  of  a glossator.  Again,  in 
Gen.  xxix.  30  it  seems  probable  that  the  LXX  did  not  find 
the  clause  “And  served  with  him  yet  seven  other  years.” 
“ The  statement  is  clearly  the  work  of  a glossator  based  on 
the  concluding  words  of  verse  27,  for  we  have  already  been 
told  in  verse  28  that  ‘ Jacob  did  so,  and  fulfilled  her  week.’ 
It  therefore  adds  nothing  to  our  information ; but,  coming  in 
this  place,  it  leads  to  the  erroneous  impression  that  Jacob 
served  seven  years  for  Rachel  after,  and  not  before,  his 
union  with  her.  In  point  of  fact  he  served  the  second  period 
of  seven  years  after  marrying  Leah  and  before  marrying 
Rachel,  and  then  served  a further  period  of  six  years  (xxxi. 
41).  Another  interesting  example  occurs  in  xxi.  1,  where  the 
Septuagintal  MS.  n omits  the  words  ‘ And  the  Lord  did  unto 
Sarah  as  he  had  spoken.’  This  leaves  the  sense  unaffected, 
but  it  makes  the  narrative  more  vigorous  and  robs  the  higher 
critics  of  a ‘ doublet.’  Examination  of  the  text  suggests  too 
that  the  lists  of  words  on  which  the  critics  place  so  much 
reliance  are  largely  due  to  the  interpolations  of  glossators.”  1 
1 Bibliotheca  Sacra,  January,  1910,  p.  60. 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


43 


COLENSO  ON  THE  FAMILY  OF  JUDAH 

The  addition  to  Gen.  xxix.  30  is  of  peculiar  importance, 
because  it  has  led  to  a difficulty  in  the  chronology.  “ I state 
the  difficulty  in  Bishop  Colenso’s  words.  After  showing 
(from  Gen.  xlvi.  8,  12,  26,  27;  Ex.  i.  1,  5 ; and  Deut.  x.  22) 
that  the  Bible  states  that  Hezron  and  Hamul  went  down  with 
Jacob  to  Egypt,  he  proceeds  thus: — “ ‘ Now  Judah  was  forty- 
two  years  ojd,  according  to  the  story,  when  he  went  down  with 
Jacob  into  Egypt.  But,  if  we  turn  to  Gen.  xxxviii.,  we  shall 
find  that,  in  the  course  of  these  forty-two  years  of  Judah’s  life, 
the  following  events  are  recorded  to  have  happened : 

“‘  (i)  Judah  grows  up,  marries  a wife,  — “at  that  time” 
(ver.  1),  that  is,  after  Joseph’s  being  sold  into  Egypt,  when 
he  was  “seventeen  years  old”  (Gen.  xxxvii.  2)  and  when 
Judah,  consequently,  was,  at  least,  twenty  years  old,  — and 
has,  separately,  three  sons  by  her. 

“ ‘ (ii)  The  oldest  of  these  three  sons  grows  up,  is  mar- 
ried, and  dies. 

“ ‘ The  second  grows  to  maturity  (suppose  in  another 
year),  marries  his  brother’s  widow,  and  dies. 

“'The  third  grows  to  maturity  (suppose  in  another  year 
still),  but  declines  to  take  his  brother’s  widow  to  wife. 

“ ‘ She  then  deceives  Judah  himself,  conceives  by  him,  and 
in  due  time  bears  him  twins,  Pharez  and  Zarah. 

“ ‘ (iii)  One  of  these  twins  also  grows  to  maturity,  and 
has  two  sons,  Hezron  and  Hamul,  born  to  him,  before  Jacob 
goes  down  into  Egypt. 

The  above  being  certainly  incredible,  we  are  obliged  to 
conclude  that  one  of  the  two  accounts  must  be  untrue.  Yet 
the  statement,  that  Hezron  and  Hamul  were  born  in  the  land 
of  Canaan,  is  vouched  so  positively  by  the  many  passages 


44 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


above  quoted,  which  sum  up  the  “ seventy  souls,”  that,  to 
give  up  this  point,  is  to  give  up  an  essential  part  of  the  whole 
story.  But  then  this  point  cannot  be  maintained,  however 
essential  to  the  narrative,  without  supposing  that  the  other 
series  of  events  had  taken  place  beforehand,  which  we  have 
seen  to  be  incredible.’  (Pentateuch  (2d  ed.),  part  i.  pp.  18, 19.) 

“ Colenso  adds  the  following  important  footnote : — 

“ ‘ Joseph  was  thirty  years  old,  when  he  stood  “ before 
Pharaoh”  as  governor  of  the  land  of  Egypt  (Gen.  xli.  46)  ; 
and  from  that  time  nine  years  elapsed  (seven  of  plenty  and 
two  of  famine)  before  Jacob  came  down  to  Egypt.  At  that 
time,  therefore,  Joseph  was  thirty-nine  years  old.  But  Ju- 
dah was  about  three  years  older  than  Joseph;  for  Judah  was 
born  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jacob’s  double  marriage  (Gen. 
xxix.  35)  and  Joseph  in  the  seventh  (Gen.  xxx.  24-26;  xxxi. 
41.)  Hence  Judah  was  forty-two  years  old  when  Jacob  went 
down  to  Egypt.’  ” 

THE  ANSWER  TO  COLENSO 

“ In  this  passage  Colenso  can  be  shown  to  have  made  two 
mistakes.  First , he  is  wrong  in  thinking  that  Judah  can  only 
have  been  three  years  older  than  Joseph ; secondly,  he  puts 
on  the  words  ‘ at  that  time  ’ a meaning  which  the  Hebrew 
does  not  necessarily  bear.  I proceed  to  prove  these  two  points 
in  detail. 

“ The  biblical  narrative  makes  it  clear  that  at  least  thirteen 
years  — not  six  or  seven  — elapsed  between  the  date  of  Ja- 
cob’s marriage  with  Leah  and  his  departure  from  Aram- 
Naharaim.  To  make  this  point  stand  out,  it  will  be  best  to 
trace  Leah’s  fortunes  in  the  first  instance.  She  married 
Jacob  at  the  end  of  the  first  seven  years  of  his  service  (Gen. 
xxix.  20-23).  She  then  bore  seven  children  at  different  times 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


45 


before  the  departure  from  Laban,  which  (Gen.  xxxi.  41)  took 
place  six  years  after  the  marriage  with  Rachel. 

“ It  is  not  possible  to  compress  these  events  into  six  years, 
even  if  Gen.  xxx.  9,  which  demands  some  considerable  ex- 
tension of  time,  be  ignored.  This  is  confirmed  by  yet  another 
circumstance.  The  two  younger  sons  and  the  daughter  were 
not  born  until  after  the  episode  of  the  mandrakes  narrated 
in  Gen.  xxx.  14-16.  But  a comparison  of  the  dates  will  show 
that  if  the  births  of  all  the  children  were  to  be  squeezed  into 
six  years,  Reuben  could  have  been  little  more  than  two  years 
old  when  he  got  the  mandrakes,  and  that  is  certainly  not  prob- 
able. The  truth  is  that  commentators  have  been  misled  by  the 
narrator’s  method  of  telling  his  story. 

“ It  is  always  possible  to  group  events  either  chronologi- 
cally or  on  some  other  principle.  In  this  instance  a true 
literary  instinct  has  led  the  historian  to  finish  the  history  of 
Jacob’s  marriages  before  he  began  to  speak  of  his  children. 
The  marriage  with  Leah  was  a disappointment  to  the  ardent 
lover,  and  accordingly  we  are  told  how  he  served  another 
seven  years,  and  then  received  Rachel  as  a wife  (Gen.  xxix. 
27-28).  Then  the  story  proceeds  to  speak  of  the  birth  of  the 
children,  but  the  narrator  does  not  fail  to  point  out  how  Provi- 
dence compensated  Leah  for  her  husband’s  want  of  affection 
(ver.  31).  In  grouping  the  events  in  this  way,  it  is  clear  that 
he  intends  to  point  a moral,  not  to  offer  a scheme  of  chrono- 
logy. When  the  chapter  is  carefully  examined,  it  is  plain  that 
the  first  four  sons  were  born  in  the  early  years  of  Leah’s  mar- 
ried life,  while  she  was  the  sole  wife,  — not,  as  Colenso  says, 
in  the  years  of  the  double  marriage,  — and  that  the  marriage 
with  Rachel  and  the  birth  of  the  other  children  fell  between 
the  termination  of  the  fourteenth  year  of  Jacob’s  service  with 
Laban  and  the  time  of  his  flight.  These  facts  have  been  ob- 


46 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


scured  by  the  order  of  the  narrative  and  the  narrator’s  ten- 
dency to  moralize,  but  they  entirely  harmonize  with  all  we 
know. 

“ The  second  mistake  relates  to  the  phrase  rendered  ‘ at 
that  time  ’ in  Gen.  xxxviii.  1.  Judah  having  married  * at  that 
time/  it  has  been  assumed  that  we  must  look  back  to  see  the 
last  episode  mentioned,  and  infer  that  the  marriage  took  place 
after  that  episode.  But  the  usage  of  the  phrase  in  other  por- 
tions of  the  Pentateuch  conclusively  shows  that  this  argument 
will  not  hold  water.  Thus  in  Deut.  x.  8 ff.  Moses  tells  how 
‘ at  that  time  ’ God  separated  the  tribe  of  Levi.  Now,  what- 
ever view  be  taken  of  the  preceding  verses,  — and  there  is 
considerable  ground  for  thinking  that  verses  6 and  7 were  not 
part  of  the  original  text  — it  is  difficult  to  read  the  phrase  as 
meaning  “then  next,”  for  the  narrative  resumes  (ver.  10), 
‘And  I stayed  in  the  Mount  ....  forty  days,’  etc.  Clearly 
the  sequence  is  here  not  strictly  chronological.  The  mention 
of  the  Tables  and  the  Ark  in  verse  5 reminds  Moses  that  some 
time  about  the  same  period  a tribe  was  set  aside  to  perform 
the  ministry  of  the  Ark,  and  he  uses  the  phrase  rather  as 
indicating  a period  than  as  giving  a precise  date.”  1 When 
Judah’s  age  is  worked  out  in  detail  in  the  light  of  these  obser- 
vations, the  time  is  found  to  be  sufficient  for  ail  the  events 
narrated:  but  an  erroneous  gloss  has  clearly  made  the  narra- 
tive in  Genesis  unduly  obscure. 

THE  STORY  OF  JOSEPH 

The  story  of  Joseph  is  of  considerable  importance  to  the 
critical  case  because  it  is  the  locus  classicus  for  the  division  of 
J from  E.  That  division  depends  primarily  on  the  famous 
“ clue.”  But  apart  from  that  clue  it  is  said  that  there  are 
discrepancies  that  render  necessary  the  assumption  of  two 
bibliotheca  Sacra,  January,  1907,  pp.  12-15. 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


47 


sources,  and  the  most  important  of  these  discrepancies  are 
supplied  by  the  story  of  Joseph.  Attention  has  already  been 
directed  to  the  most  salient  of  these  — the  strange  alternation 
of  Midianites  and  Jshmaelites,  the  confusion  between  Joseph’s 
master  and  the  keeper  of  the  prison,  and  the  sudden  surprising 
location  of  the  prison  in  the  house  of  Joseph’s  master.1  All 
these  and  many  other  less  perplexing  features  of  the  story  are 
removed  by  the  textual  evidence.  The  details  must  be  sought 
in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  January  and  April,  1910,  but  the 
outlines  must  be  given  here.  In  chapter  xxxvii.  it  appears 
that  some  glosses  and  two  corruptions  (one  of  five  letters,  the 
other  of  three)  are  responsible  for  the  difficulties.  In  verse  28 
the  original  text  probably  had  “ the  Ishmaelites  ” for  the  Mas- 
soretic  “ men,  Midianites,  merchants  ” ; while  in  verse  36  the 
Massoretic  “ Medanites  ” appears  to  have  replaced  an  earlier 
“ merchants.”  Further,  in  Hebrew,  “ keeper  of  the  prison  ” 
and  “ captain  of  the  guard  ” both  begin  with  the  same  word, 
and  in  the  passages  where  the  “ captain  of  the  guard  ” causes 
trouble  by  his  appearance  the  LXX  either  omitted  the  phrase 
or  read  “ keeper  of  the  prison,”  in  one  case  with  the  support 
of  the  Vulgate.  The  original  text  of  the  LXX  in  chapter  xl. 
1-7  appears  to  have  run  as  follows : 

“And  it  came  to  pass  after  these  things,  that  the  butler  of 
the  king  of  Egypt  and  his  baker  offended  their  lord  the  king 
of  Egypt,  and  he  was  wroth  against  his  two  officers.  And  he 
put  them  in  ward  into  the  prison,  the  place  where  Joseph  was 
bound.  And  the  keeper  of  the  prison  charged  Joseph  with 
them,  and  he  ministered  unto  them : and  they  continued  a sea- 
son in  ward.  And  they  dreamed  a dream  both  of  them  in  one 
night.  And  Joseph  came  in  unto  them  in  the  morning,  and 


1 Supra,  pp.  8 f . 


48 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


saw  them,  and,  behold,  they  were  sad.  And  he  asked  them, 
Wherefore  look  ye  so  sadly  to-day  ? ” 

Anybody  who  will  compare  this  with  the  ordinary  text  of 
the  English  Versions  will  see  that  the  superior  brevity  of  this 
form  of  the  narrative  is  not  secured  by  the  omission  of  any 
fact,  but  merely  by  the  adoption  of  a shorter  form  of  words. 
The  additional  words  in  the  Massoretic  text  appear  to  be  the 
explanatory  notes  of  glossators.  They  detract  from  the  lit- 
erary merit  of  the  narrative  without  conferring  any  compen- 
sating advantage. 

KORAH,  DATHAN,  AND  ABIRAM 

The  narrative  of  Korah’s  revolt  provides  us  with  another 
instance  of  the  importance  of  textual  criticism.  “ Once  more/’ 
writes  Dr.  Carpenter,  “ the  rebellion  of  Korah,  Dathan,  and 
Abiram,  in  Num.  xvi.,  issues  in  the  strange  result  that  their 
two  hundred  and  fifty  followers  (ver.  2)  are  first  engulfed  in 
the  midst  of  all  their  possessions  (ver.  32),  and  then  devoured 
by  fire  at  the  entrance  of  the  tent  of  meeting  (ver.  35)/’ 1 It 
seems  a pity  to  spoil  so  picturesque  a conclusion,  yet  it  is 
necessary  to  point  out  that  the  difficulties  of  the  chapter  arise 
merely  from  the  state  of  the  text.  The  original  appears  to  have 
told  how  Korah  and  his  company  were  assembled  in  one  place 
while  Dathan  and  Abiram  stood  by  their  tents.  In  verses  24 
and  27  the  author  seems  to  have  written  “ Get  you  up  from 
about  the  congregation  of  Korah.  ...  So  they  got  them  up 
from  the  congregation  of  Korah  on  every  side.”  In  both 
verses  a corruption  of  a few  letters  set  in,  “ Dwelling  ” taking 
the  place  of  “ congregation.’’  Glossators  added  Dathan  and 
Abiram,  who,  according  to  verses  25  and  27,  were  not  with 
Korah,  with  the  result  that  in  both  places  the  Massoretic  text 

Oxford  Hexateucb,  vol.  i.  p.  32. 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


49 


presents  the  unintelligible  phrase  “ the  Dwelling  of  Korah, 
Dathan  and  Abiram.”  Fortunately  the  Septuagintal  author- 
ities tell  us  the  tale.  Dathan  and  Abiram,  their  households, 
and  the  household  of  Korah  were  swallowed  by  the  earth: 
Korah  and  his  two  hundred  and  fifty  were  consumed  by  fire. 
This  is  confirmed  by  the  Samaritan  text  of  Num.  xxvi.  10, 
from  which  it  appears  that  that  verse  originally  ran:  “And 
the  earth  opened  her  mouth,  and  swallowed  them  up,  when 
the  company  died,  what  time  the  fire  consumed  Korah  and 
two  hundred  and  fifty  men.”  The  correctness  of  these  vari- 
ants is  attested  by  independent  considerations.  For  example, 
Deuteronomy  mentions  Dathan  and  Abiram  without  Korah. 
while  Num.  xxvii.  3 speaks  of  Korah  without  Dathan  and 
Abiram.  Again,  even  the  critics  cannot  make  the  existing 
text  of  Num.  xvi.  fit  their  theory,  but  have  to  assign  “ Korah, 
Dathan,  and  Abiram  ” in  verses  24  and  27,  and  also  other 
phrases,  to  harmonists  — of  course  without  consulting  the 
textual  authorities.  It  is  really  very  strange  that  men  who 
felt  that  the  Massoretic  text  could  not  be  supported  should  not 
have  troubled  to  examine  the  ancient  authorities  for  guidance 
before  embarking  on  an  ocean  of  the  wildest  and  most  sub- 
jective speculation. 

DERANGEMENTS  OF  ORDER 

Yet  another  set  of  phenomena  are  explained  by  another 
department  of  textual  criticism.  It  has  often  been  noted  that 
the  order  of  the  narratives  in  the  Pentateuch  is  sometimes 
extremely  strange.  There  are  occasions  when  we  can  say 
definitely,  for  one  reason  or  another,  that  the  order  is  out  of 
correspondence  with  the  actual  sequence  of  events  or  with  any 
intelligible  narrative  principle.  For  example,  in  Ex.  xviii.  we 
learn  of  a visit  paid  by  Jethro  to  Moses  when  he  was  en- 


50 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


camped  at  the  Mount  of  God ; but  it  is  not  till  the  next  chap- 
ter that  we  read  of  the  arrival  of  the  Israelites  at  this  Mount. 
In  Lev.  ix.  22  we  read  of  Aaron’s  blessing  the  people;  the 
command  to  bless  is,  however,  not  given  till  Num.  vi.  22-27. 
In  Num.  xxi.  1-3  we  learn  of  a campaign  conducted  against 
Arad  in  the  south  of  Canaan : yet,  according  to  the  sequence 
of  the  narrative,  the  Israelites  were  at  that  time  on  a south- 
ward march  to  the  Red  Sea  from  Kadesh,  a place  that  itself 
is  south,  and  not  north,  of  Arad.  These  instances  — which 
could  easily  be  multiplied  — show  that  the  order  of  our  pres- 
ent Pentateuch  is  not  chronological.  In  some  cases  it  cannot 
even  be  topical,  as  is  shown  by  the  instance  of  the  Arad  cam- 
paign. At  this  point  other  evidence  comes  to  our  aid.  Some- 
times Deuteronomy  clearly  testifies  to  a different  arrangement 
of  the  material  as  having  been  original.  The  most  important 
example  of  this  is  the  statement  of  the  sojourn  at  Kadesh. 
In  i.  40  we  are  told,  as  in  Numbers,  that  the  Israelites  were 
commanded  to  turn  and  take  their  journey  into  the  wilderness 
by  the  way  to  the  Red  Sea.  Then  follows  a narrative  of  their 
disobedience  and  consequent  defeat.  The  speaker  continues: 
“ So  ye  abode  in  Kadesh  many  days,  according  unto  the  days 
that  ye  abode.  Then  we  turned,  and  took  our  journey  into 
the  wilderness  by  the  way  to  the  Red  Sea,  as  the  Lord  spake 
unto  me : and  we  compassed  Mount  Seir  many  days.  . . . And 
the  days  in  which  we  came  from  Kadesh-barnea,  until  we 
were  come  over  the  brook  Zered,  were  thirty  and  eight  years  ” 
(Deut.  i.  46;  ii.  1,  14).  This  naturally  means  that  the  Israel- 
ites after  a stay  at  Kadesh  left  at  some  date  in  the  third  year 
and  never  returned  to  it.  No  such  narrative  can  be  derived 
from  the  statements  of  Numbers  in  their  present  order:  but  if 
we  take  Deuteronomy  as  a witness  to  the  text  of  Numbers, 
and  see  whether  the  statement  can  be  extracted  from  the  lat- 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


51 


ter  book  in  this  way,  we  find  that  by  combining  the  first  half 
of  Num.  xx.  22  with  the  second  half  of  Num.  xxi.  4 we  obtain 
the  narrative  of  Deuteronomy.  The  result  reads,  “And  they 
journeyed  from  Kadesh  by  the  way  to  the  Red  Sea,  to  com- 
pass the  land  of  Edom,”  etc.  If  this  be  correct,  the  inter- 
vening portion  must  have  been  inserted  in  its  present  place  by 
accident,  and  that  would  account  for  the  extraordinary  geo- 
graphical difficulty  of  the  Arad  campaign.  What  should  we 
have  to  postulate  to  account  for  such  a displacement?  Noth- 
ing beyond  what  is  within  everybody’s  experience.  When  a 
leaf  falls  out  of  a book  we  frequently  misplace  it  instead  of 
putting  it  into  its  right  position.  There  is  little  excuse  for 
us  nowadays,  seeing  that  our  books  have  pages  and  these  are 
numbered:  but  the  case  was  different  with  MS.  texts  some 
twenty-five  centuries  ago.  A reader  might  hunt  diligently  for 
the  right  place  and  yet  make  a mistake.  Once  he  had  come  to 
a wrong  conclusion  in  the  matter  the  harm  would  be  perpet- 
uated. Indeed  it  might  be  greatly  extended,  for  a subsequent 
reader  might  realize  that  the  narrative  was  not  in  order,  and 
in  seeking  to  remedy  the  trouble  he  might  introduce  fresh 
mistakes.  There  is  some  reason  for  believing  that  in  some 
cases  the  present  difficulty  of  the  order  of  the  Pentateuchal 
sections  is  due  to  mistaken  efforts  to  improve  errors  of  posi- 
tion. In  this  particular  instance  other  clues  can  be  found  when 
the  narrative  is  carefully  examined.  In  Num.  xxi.  3 we  read : 
“And  they  devoted  them  and  their  cities : and  the  name  of  the 
place  was  called  Hormah.”  This  certainly  looks  as  if  it  were 
intended  to  be  the  first  mention  of  Hormah : yet  in  the  pres- 
ent arrangement  of  the  text  we  find  the  name  “ Hormah  ” 
occurring  without  any  explanation  in  Num.  xiv.  45.  When 
this  is  added  to  the  other  phenomena  to  which  attention  has 
been  called,  it  becomes  natural  to  wonder  whether  the  Arad 


52 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


campaign  did  not  in  fact  take  place  before  the  defeat  when 
the  Israelites. were  driven  to  Hormah.  But  one  consideration 
leads  to  another,  and  once  this  idea  is  suggested  we  see  that 
another  difficulty  suddenly  disappears.  In  the  present  nar- 
rative, Num.  xxi.  1-3  gives  rise  to  the  question  “ Why  did  the 
Israelites  evacuate  this  country  which  they  had  already  con- 
quered?” If  the  narrative  really  refers  to  something  that 
preceded  the  bad  defeat,  the  answer  is  obvious.  The  Israel- 
ites were  routed  on  the  scene  of  their  former  victory,  and 
found  that  they  could  not  hold  the  territory  of  Arad.  When 
these  and  other  considerations  are  weighed  together,  it  be- 
comes clear  that  a very  large  number  of  miscellaneous  diffi- 
culties can  be  solved  by  the  supposition  that,  as  the  result  of 
the  vicissitudes  undergone  by  the  text,  the  order  has  suffered 
derangement.  The  detailed  discussion  will  be  found  on  pages 
114-138  of  “ Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.”  Here  it  is 
sufficient  to  observe  that  a whole  host  of  problems  — chrono- 
logical, geographical,  literary,  and  historical  — can  be  solved 
by  this  method,  while  serious  discrepancies  between  Deuter- 
onomy and  Numbers  also  disappear. 

OTHER  TRANSPOSITIONS 

Sometimes  the  LXX  presents  verses  in  a different  order, 
and  thereby  shows  that  transpositions  have  taken  place  in  one 
or  other  of  the  texts  that  have  come  down  to  us.  This  phe- 
nomenon again  strengthens  the  view  already  taken,  that  many 
of  our  difficulties  are  due  to  errors  in  the  order  of  the  exist- 
ing text  and  result  merely  from  the  vicissitudes  of  transmis- 
sion, not  from  difference  of  authorship. 

Consequently  there  can  be  nothing  more  legitimate  than  to 
consider  whether  some  further  transposition  may  not  have 
taken  place  before  any  of  the  Versions  were  made  in  other 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


53 


passages  where  Deuteronomy  does  not  touch  on  the  narrative 
of  the  earlier  books.  Such  transpositions,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  might  be  due  to  a purely  accidental  cause,  i.e.  the  inser- 
tion of  a portion  of  a deranged  MS.  in  the  wrong  place.  In 
such  a case,  however,  the  incoherence  of  the  narrative  and  in- 
ternal evidence  will  show  us  that  there  is  something  wrong. 
In  many  cases  the  internal  evidence  may  even  go  further  and 
suggest  the  right  position  for  the  misplaced  passage. 

THE  TENT  OF  MEETING 

A striking  instance  is  afforded  by  the  narrative  of  the  Tent 
of  Meeting  in  Ex.  xxxiii.  7-11.  It  has  already  been  shown 
that  this  creates  great  difficulties1.  This  tent  cannot  be  iden- 
tified with  the  Tabernacle,  for  which  instructions  had  been 
given  in  chapters  xxv.  ff.,  for  many  reasons.  The  Tabernacle 
had  not  yet  been  constructed : when  made  it  was  to  serve  quite 
a different  purpose,  being  designed  as  the  dwelling-place  of 
the  Ark,  which  had  not  yet  come  into  existence:  it  was  to 
stand  in  the  center  of  the  camp,  not  outside ; to  be  served  by 
priests,  not  Joshua ; to  be  of  a weight,  design,  and  size  that 
would  have  made  its  transport  by  a single  man  an  impossibility. 
Further,  the  narrative  has  no  intelligible  connection  with  the 
context.  If,  however,  we  try  the  effects  of  transposition,  the 
whole  difficulty  suddenly  disappears,  for  there  is  a place  where 
this  narrative  fits  exactly.  Indeed,  we  have  various  clues  to 
guide  us.  Joshua  first  appears  in  our  present  text  in  chapter 
xvii.  9.  No  introduction  of  any  sort  is  given ; he  is  spoken  of 
as  a person  already  known.  Yet  in  this  passage  he  is  treated 
as  previously  unknown : “ his  servant  Joshua,  son  of  Nun,  a 
young  man/’  Clearly  an  order  that  placed  this  passage  before 
xvii.  would  be  more  natural,  so  far  as  Joshua  is  concerned. 
Next,  it  appears  that  every  one  which  sought  the  Lord  used 
1 Supra,  pp.  9 f. 


54 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


to  go  out  to  this  Tent.  Exodus  xviii.  presents  us  with  another 
picture ; and,  as  we  know  from  the  statements  of  that  chapter, 
it  relates  to  the  period  at  Horeb.  In  that  case  whosoever 
sought  God  went  to  Moses  — obviously  in  the  midst  of  the 
camp,  for  all  the  people  stood  by  him.  Which  of  these  two 
representations  refers  to  the  earlier  period  in  point  of  time? 
The  answer  is  supplied  by  the  passages  that  show  us  Moses 
sitting  in  the  midst  of  the  camp  at  the  door  of  the  Tabernacle: 
“ Then  came  the  daughters  of  Zelophehad  ....  and  they  stood 
before  Moses,  and  before  Eleazar  the  priest,  and  before  the 
princes  and  all  the  congregation  by  the  door  of  the  Tent  of 
Meeting”  (Num.  xxvii.). 

That  was  the  later  practice  after  the  Tabernacle  had  been 
erected.  Therefore  this  clue  also  points  to  the  assignment  of 
Ex.  xxxiii.  7-11  to  an  earlier  date.  Further,  some  such  ar- 
rangements for  the  administration  of  justice  as  are  here  made 
are  postulated  by  the  narrative  of  xxiv.  14.  Moses  there 
makes  special  arrangements  for  the  transaction  of  judicial 
business  during  the  period  that  he  was  in  the  Mount.  This 
implies  that  up  to  that  time  he  had  tried  all  the  cases  as  they 
arose,  and  we  should  expect  a statement  to  that  effect  at  the 
beginning  of  the  narrative  of  the  wanderings.  If,  now,  we 
follow  up  these  clues  and  look  for  a suitable  position  to  which 
to  transfer  Ex.  xxxiii.  7-11,  we  find  one  place  where  it  fits 
like  a glove.  That  is  after  xiii.  22.  We  have  just  been  told 
how  the  pillar  of  cloud  by  day  and  the  pillar  of  fire  by  night 
were  always  before  the  people.  Correcting  the  rendering  of 
xxxiii.  7,  which  is  mistranslated  in  the  Revised  Version,  we 
may  read  “And  Moses  used  to  take  a for  “the”]  tent  and 
pitch  it  for  himself  without  the  camp,  afar  off  from  the  camp. 
. . . And  it  came  to  pass,  as  Moses  came  to  the  tent  the  pillar 
of  cloud  used  to  descend  and  stand  at  the  door  of  the  tent,  and 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


00 

speak  with  Moses.”  This  statement  of  the  habitual  descents 
of  the  pillar  of  cloud  attaches  naturally  to  the  earlier  narrative 
of  its  constant  presence.  As  a provision  for  the  trial  of  cases, 
Ex.  xxxiii.  7-11  then  stands  in  its  most  natural  position,  and 
all  the  subsequent  arrangements  become  more  intelligible. 
Moreover,  we  are  introduced  to  Joshua  naturally  and  suitably. 

toshua's  supposed  priesthood 
We  have  seen  that  the  rendering  of  the  Revised  Version  of 
Ex.  xxxiii.  7 must  be  corrected  to  bring  it  into  accord  with  the 
Hebrew,  which  distinctly  says  that  Moses  used  to  pitch  the 
tent  “ for  himself.”  In  view  of  the  theory  of  Wellhausen  that 
Joshua  was  the  minister  of  a sanctuary  in  E,  this  phrase  has 
a very  special  importance.  The  line  of  reasoning  was  as  fol- 
lows : the  tent  existed  for  the  Ark : therefore,  Joshua,  left  in 
charge  of  the  tent,  was  in  charge  of  the  Ark  : therefore,  the  con- 
ception of  law  and  history  is  entirely  different  from  that  which 
places  the  ministry  of  the  Ark  solely  in  the  charge  of  priests, 
sons  of  Aaron,  and  Levites,  for  Joshua  was  an  Ephraimite. 
All  this  is  demolished  by  the  little  Hebrew  monosyllable  which 
means  “ for  himself.”  If  Moses  took  a (or  the)  tent  outside 
the  camp  and  pitched  it  for  himself , it  follows  of  necessity  that 
the  tent  in  question  was  not  the  abode  of  the  Ark,  for  we  can- 
not conceive  that  he  left  the  Ark  (which,  by  the  way,  had  not 
yet  come  into  existence,  according  to  the  actual  biblical  narra- 
tive, as  contrasted  with  the  narrative  imagined  by  the  crit- 
ical school)  in  the  middle  of  the  camp  without  its  natural 
covering,  bared  and  unguarded,  while  removing  its  tent  to  a 
distance  for  his  own  private  purposes.  If,  however,  we  are 
to  suppose  that  he  actually  did  take  this  course,  then  Joshua 
was  not  in  charge  of  the  Ark,  since  on  this  wonderful  hypo- 
thesis it  was  in  the  midst  of  the  camp  while  Joshua  was  in  the 


56 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


tent  “ afar  off  from  the  camp.”  In  point  of  fact,  this  alleged 
priesthood  of  Joshua  in  E is  a perversion  of  the  facts  of  that 
“ document.”  In  Deut.  xxxiii.  8 ff.  it  most  distinctly  assigns 
the  priesthood  to  Levi,  not  to  Ephraim:  in  x.  6 it  speaks  of 
the  priesthood  of  Aaron  and  Eleazar:  in  the  book  of  Joshua 
it  recognizes  priests  in  charge  of  the  Ark  who  are  absolutely 
distinct  from  the  Ephraimite  leader.  There  is  no  tittle  of  evi- 
dence for  the  priesthood  of  Joshua,  and  the  whole  case  rests 
on  a mistranslation  of  Ex.  xxxiii.  7.  Never  in  any  document 
does  Joshua  perform  any  priestly  function  whatsoever. 

THE  NUMBERS  OF  THE  ISRAELITES 
Before  passing  from  this  department  of  the  reply  to  the 
higher  critics,  something  should  be  said  of  another  set  of 
difficulties  that  find  an  easy  solution  by  means  of  textual  criti- 
cism, viz.  the  numbers  of  the  Israelites.  There  can  be  but  few 
readers  who  have  not  heard  of  the  controversy  connected  with 
the  name  of  Colenso.  There  have  been  many  answers  to  his 
attack  on  the  numbers  of  the  Israelites  as  given  in  the  Masso- 
retic  text,  but  candor  compels  the  admission  that,  fairly  con- 
sidered, the  answers  are  not  convincing.  Yet  if  we  turn  to  the 
textual  considerations  we  find  reason  to  believe  that  the  pres- 
ent form  of  the  numbers  is  not  original.  Pakeographical  sci- 
ence proves  that  there  was  a time  when  e.  g.  the  same  charac- 
ters could  be  read  either  as  forty  thousand  or  four  thousand,  and 
that  errors  of  transmission  could  arise  very  easily  in  this  way. 
The  details  are  too  technical  for  a publication  of  this  kind, 
and  must  be  sought  in  the  writer’s  “ Essays  in  Pentateuchal 
Criticism.”  Here  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  those  who  are 
prepared  to  go  into  the  evidence  will  find  that  there  is  an  easy 
and  natural  solution  available  which  leaves  the  view  taken  of 
the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  unchanged. 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


57 


THE  CHRONOLOGY  OF  NUMBERS 

The  first  (and  most  celebrated)  part  of  Colenso’s  famous 
book  on  the  Pentateuch  was  based  on  three  sets  of  difficulties : 
those  connected  with  the  chronology  of  Judah;  those  relating 
to  the  numbers  of  the  Pentateuch ; and,  finally,  those  arising 
in  the  chronology  of  the  concluding  chapters  of  Numbers.  It 
has  been  shown  that  textual  criticism  can  solve  the  first  two 
sets  of  difficulties.  What  about  the  third?  Reasons  have 
been  given  above  to  prove  that  the  order  of  the  present  text 
of  Numbers  is  not  original.  When  it  is  rectified,  Colenso’s 
difficulties  are  to  a great  extent  relieved ; but  even  so  they  do 
not  entirely  disappear.  They  all  depend  on  one  word  in  the 
Hebrew  text  — the  word  “fifth”  in  Num.  xxxiii.  38,  where 
we  are  told  that  Aaron  died  on  the  first  day  of  the  fifth  month. 
The  subsequent  events  can  scarcely  be  fitted  into  the  time  this 
leaves.  The  Syriac,  however,  preserves  a different  reading. 
According  to  this  authority  the  event  occurred  in  the  first,  not 
the  fifth  month,  and  this  reading  quite  answers  all  Colenso’s 
objections.  It  is  thus  that  an  error  of  a few  letters  made  by 
a copyist  transcribing  a badly  written  text  can  introduce  ex- 
traordinary difficulties  that  will  baffle  even  the  acutest  schol- 
ars if  they  refuse  to  avail  themselves  of  the  resources  of  text- 
ual criticism. 

It  should  be  added  that  there  are  other  chronological  diffi- 
culties in  Genesis  which  yield  to  textual  treatment.  A typical 
example  will  be  found  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  October, 
1910. 


Ill 


THE  ARGUMENTS  FROM  LAW  AND  HISTORY 

Perhaps  the  portions  of  the  higher  critical  theory  that  carry 
most  weight  at  present  are  the  arguments  from  the  laws  and 
the  historical  reconstruction.  Many  men  who  care  little 
about  the  apportionment  of  individual  verses  to  different 
sources  find  a fascination  in  a broad  rewriting  of  history  on  a 
large  scale.  Moreover,  alleged  discrepancies  in  the  legisla- 
tion form  an  important  branch  of  the  case  for  the  analysis. 
For  this  reason  these  arguments  will  be  taken  at  once,  though 
it  might  be  more  logical  to  deal  first  with  the  so-called  “ lit- 
erary ” portion  of  the  higher  critical  case. 

THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  LAWS 

It  is  not  difficult  to  state  in  general  outline  what  has  hap- 
pened and  how  the  present  state  of  affairs  has  come  about. 
Criticism  found  in  the  Pentateuch  a body  of  laws:  it  also 
found  a traditional  interpretation  of  those  laws,  going  back  in 
principle  at  least  as  far  as  the  age  of  Nehemiah.  Testing  this 
interpretation,  it  was  able  to  show  with  ease  that  it  neither 
made  the  legislation  into  a consistent  and  intelligible  whole 
nor  accorded  with  the  views  of  the  prophets  and  the  earlier 
historical  books.  So  far  the  criticism  was  justifiable.  It 
should  have  led  the  critics  to  submit  the  legislation  to  experts 
and  discover  whether  any  other  interpretation  was  possible. 
Instead  of  this,  they  proceeded  to  assume  that  they  were 
themselves  competent  to  discuss  these  intricate  questions,  and 
this  has  led  to  disastrous  results.  Hence  it  has  come  about 
that  the  perfectly  authentic  legislation  of  Moses  is  regarded 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


59 


by  them  as  the  work  of  literary  impostors.  The  truth  is  that 
many  centuries  after  the  death  of  Moses  historical  necessities 
led  — as  they  have  done  in  the  case  of  every  other  unchange- 
able legislation  — to  a particular  method  of  interpreting  his 
laws  with  a view  to  making  them  applicable  to  the  require- 
ments of  a later  age ; but  if  we  wish  to  understand  the  true 
original  meaning  we  must  go  behind  this  interpretation  to  the 
laws  themselves,  and  read  them  in  the  light  of  the  circum- 
stances of  the  time  for  which  they  were  given. 

AN  UNANSWERED  CHALLENGE 

In  this  connection  attention  may  be  drawn  to  the  following- 
passage  from  an  article  contributed  by  the  present  writer  to 
the  Churchman  for  January,  1908. 

“ First,  then,  as  I have  repeatedly  pointed  out,  the  higher 
critics,  although  dealing  with  what  is  avowedly  an  old  law 
book,  have  never  taken  the  trouble  to  consult  any  independent 
lawyer.  There  appears  to  be  doubt  in  some  minds  as  to  the 
accuracy  of  this  statement.  Accordingly,  I may  properly 
quote  a letter  1 received  from  a higher  critic,  together  with 
my  reply.  My  correspondent  wrote : ‘ I must  admit  that  I am 
naturally  impressed  when  T find  legal  men  of  repute  abroad, 
who  have  studied  the  subject  impartially,  endorsing  the  meth- 
ods and  the  essential  conclusions  of  recent  criticism.’  To 
which  T replied  as  follows : ‘ 1 understand  you  to  say  that 

“ legal  men  of  repute  abroad,  who  have  studied  the  subject 
impartially,  endorse  the  methods  and  the  essential  conclusions 
of  recent  criticism.”  May  I have  a reference  to  these  men  and 
their  works?  I am  acquainted  with  some  writers  of  whom 
you  may  be  thinking;  but,  as  they  avowedly  take  over  the 
conclusions  of  the  higher  critics  ready-made,  without  any 
study  (impartial  or  other)  of  the  grounds  of  those  conclus- 


60 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


ions,  they  could  scarcely  be  covered  by  your  description.  Most 
of  the  legal  work  that  I have  seen  on  the  Pentateuch  is  ex- 
ceedingly superficial,  and  adopts  the  views  of  either  critics 
or  rabbis  or  both  without  independent  investigation/  The 
reply  to  that  letter  contained  no  references ; indeed,  my  cor- 
respondent was  most  careful  not  to  allude  to  the  subject  again. 
And  if  any  reader  of  the  Churchman  should  find  himself  con- 
fronted with  such  a statement,  I should  be  obliged  by  his  ob- 
taining references  and  sending  them  to  me.  The  matter  can 
then  be  investigated,  and  the  work  of  the  ‘ legal  men  of  repute 
abroad  ’ can  be  subjected  to  proper  tests.”  1 

The  writer  has  not  yet  received  any  references.  He  will 
be  obliged  to  any  reader  of  these  lines  who  can  compel  the 
higher  critics  to  break  silence  on  this  point. 

WELLHAUSEN  ON  SANCTUARIES 

The  foregoing  observations  will  become  much  easier  to  fol- 
low when  the  concrete  cases  are  considered,  and  to  this  we 
must  now  proceed.  Fortunately  there  is  one  topic  — sanctu- 
aries — to  which  special  importance  attaches,  and  accordingly 
we  shall  do  well  to  consider  that  first. 

It  will  be  remembered,  from  what  has  already  been  said,2 
that  Wellhausen  and  his  followers  distinguish  three  main 
stages  of  law  and  history  — those  of  JE,  D,  and  P respect- 
ively. At  first,  they  say,  there  was  no  slaughter  without  sac- 
rifice. The  eating  of  meat  was  a rarity.  When  it  occurred, 
a formal  sacrifice  of  a domestic  animal  took  place,  and  a sac- 
rificial meal  followed.  But  sacrifice  requires  an  altar,  and 
therefore  we  find  a law  that  allows  of  any  number  of  altars. 
It  also  demands  a sacrificant,  and  accordingly  any  layman 

lrThe  Churchman,  January,  1908,  pp.  16  f. 

* Supra,  pp.  16  f. 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


61 


might  sacrifice.  Historically  the  critics  point  to  the  altars 
erected  by  the  patriarchs  and  by  prominent  men  in  the  post- 
Mosaic  period.  The  Law  is  found  in  Ex.  xx.  24-26 : “An 
altar  of  earth  thou  mayest  make  unto  me,  and  mayest  sacrifice 
thereon  thy  burnt-ofiferings,  and  thy  peace-offerings,  thy  sheep, 
and  thine  oxen;  in  every  place  ( or  in  all  the  place)  where  I 
record  my  name  I will  come  unto  thee  and  I will  bless  thee. 
And  if  thou  make  me  an  altar  of  stone,  thou  shalt  not  build 
it  of  hewn  stones.  . . . Neither  shalt  thou  go  up  by  steps  unto 
mine  altar.”  The  force  of  these  provisions  may  be  brought 
out  clearly  by  other  passages.  Take,  for  instance,  Ex.  xxvii. 
1-8,  containing  the  instructions  for  the  making  of  the  altar 
of  burnt  offering.  No  one  who  reads  that  passage  can  sup- 
pose that  such  a structure  as  that  contemplated  by  Ex.  xx.  is 
there  intended.  But,  if  we  turn  to  the  account  of  the  altar 
constructed  by  Elijah  on  Mount  Carmel  (1  Kings  xviii.  30- 
32),  or  the  great  stone  rolled  at  Saul’s  command  after  the  bat- 
tle of  Michmash  to  serve  as  an  altar  (1  Sam.  xiv.  33-35)  or 
the  rock  on  which  Manoah  sacrificed  (Jud.  xiii.  19),  or  the 
narrative  in  which  Naaman  asks  for  two  mules’  burden  of 
earth  (2  Kings  v.  17),  we  shall  see  Ex.  xx.  in  operation. 

Wellhausen  and  his  followers  accordingly  say  that  this  law 
permits  sacrifice  at  any  place  of  peculiar  sanctity  where  there 
had  been  a theophany,  though  sometimes  the  theophany  fol- 
lowed instead  of  preceding  the  sacrificial  act.  There  is  indeed 
a historical  period  which  is  in  accordance  with  the  require- 
ments of  that  law,  but,  as  we  shall  have  to  note  hereafter,  it 
does  not  follow  that  the  period  is  not  also  in  accordance  with 
other  requirements.  The  book  of  Deuteronomy  insists  strongly 
on  the  importance  of  the  religious  capital  and  recognizes  the 
legitimacy  of  non-sacrificial  slaughter  of  domestic  animals  for 
food.  In  the  view  of  the  critics  it  thus  makes  possible  for  the 


62 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


first  time  a non-religious  killing  for  food  and  prohibits  local 
altars.  It  resulted  in  Josiah’s  reformation.  Finally  the  priestly 
legislation  in  or  after  the  exile  assumes  the  single  central  sanct- 
uary as  axiomatic,  and  never  even  contemplates  the  possibility 
of  local  sacrifice. 

THE  ANSWER  TO  WELLHAUSEN 

Every  single  point  in  this  scheme  is  open  to  refutation.  If 
it  were  true  that  non-sacrificial  slaughter  was  impossible  until 
the  publication  of  Deuteronomy  in  the  reign  of  Josiah,  it 
would  necessarily  follow  that  the  earlier  narratives  would 
know  nothing  of  such  slaughter.  Yet  we  find  instance  after 
instance  of  ordinary  killing  without  altar  or  sacrifice,  and 
when  critics  are  asked  about  these  they  meet  all  questions  with 
silence.  Abraham  prepares  a calf  in  Gen.  xviii.  7,  but  there  is 
no  sign  of  altar  or  religious  rite;  Jacob  and  Rebecca  were  cer- 
tainly not  responsible  for  a sacrifice  in  Gen.  xxvii.  9-14,  nor 
was  Joseph’s  steward  in  xliii.  16.  The  law  of  Ex.  xxii.  1 
(Heb.  xxi.  37)  speaks  of  the  killing  of  stolen  animals  as  a 
perfectly  natural  occurrence,  but  assuredly  does  not  contem- 
plate a religious  ceremony.  Nor  can  we  find  such  in  1 Sam. 
xxv.  11  or  xxviii.  24.  It  skills  not  to  multiply  instances.  This 
portion  of  the  theory  breaks  down  under  the  impact  of  the 
facts.  Its  other  branches  are  no  happier. 

SACRIFICE  WITHOUT  THEOPHANY 

We  find  one  instance  after  another  of  sacrifice  at  places 
where  no  theophany  can  be  suggested.  Saul’s  altar  after 
Michmash,  Samuel’s  at  Ramah,  Adonijah’s  sacrifice  at  En- 
rogel,  Naaman’s  earth,  David’s  clan  sacrifice  in  1 Sam.  xx.  6, 
29,  Abram’s  altars  near  Bethel  (Gen.  xii.  8)  and  at  Mamre 
(xiii.  18),  Jacob’s  sacrifices  in  Gen.  xxxi.  54  and  xxxiii.  20  are 
all  examples.  Thus  we  find  that  in  Ex.  xx.  we  must  render 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


63 


“ in  all  the  place  where  I cause  my  name  to  be  remembered,” 
and  understand  it  not  of  theophanies,  but  of  the  territory  of 
Israel  for  the  time  being-. 

HOUSE  OF  GOD  AND  LAY  ALTARS 

When  we  examine  the  data  of  JE,  we  find  that,  though  its 
laws  admit  of  a number  of  altars  of  earth  or  stone,  they  also 
recognize  a single  “ House  of  the  Lord.”  Now  a house  is  not 
a stone  or  a mound  of  earth  or  stone,  and,  conversely,  a 
mound  is  not  a house.  This  remark  may  appear  so  obvious  as 
to  be  ludicrous.  Unfortunately  in  this  department  of  the  sub- 
ject nothing  is  too  obvious  for  emphasis.  The  fact  is  that  it  is 
possible  for  men  living  many  centuries  after  the  laws  have 
ceased  to  operate  to  confuse  objects  which  no  eye-witness 
could  have  failed  to  distinguish.  A modern  professor  can 
call  a stone  a “ sanctuary  ” and  then  mistake  it  for  a house, 
but  no  contemporary  could  have  done  so.  A very  curious 
illustration  of  this  truth  may  prove  interesting.  Ex.  xxi.  be- 
gins with  a law  relating  to  slaves,  and  it  is  provided  that  in 
certain  eventualities  a slave  is  to  be  taken  to  “ Elohim  ” — 
translated  “ God  ” by  the  Revised  Version,  but  “ judges  ” by 
the  Authorized  — and  brought  to  the  door  or  door-post,  and 
there  have  his  ear  perforated.  The  higher  critics,  full  of  their 
theory  of  the  “ plurality  of  sanctuaries,”  at  once  say  that  this 
rite  is  to  take  place  at  a “ sanctuary.”  If,  however,  we  ask 
what  “ sanctuaries  ” the  law  of  Ex.  xx.  permits,  we  shall  find 
that  it  allows  only  altars  of  earth  or  stone ; and  when  we  look 
at  the  historical  instances,  we  see  that  they  show  us  such  al- 
tars, and  nothing  more.  Let  the  reader  think  of  Elijah  on 
Carmel,  Saul  after  Michmash,  Manoah’s  rock,  or  any  other 
of  the  numerous  examples  we  find  in  the  historical  books,  and 
let  him  ask  himself  whether  any  of  the  altars  there  contem- 


64 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


plated  could  by  any  possibility  have  had  doors  or  door-posts, 
or  could  have  developed  them  on  being  called  “ sanctuaries  ” 
by  modern  writers.  Importance  attaches  to  this  point  because 
it  shows  so  clearly  what  value  should  be  assigned  to  the  paper 
criticism  of  modern  theorists.  How  can  any  man  who  cannot 
distinguish  between  a stone  and  a house,  because  he  has  first 
fuddled  himself  by  calling  both  “ sanctuaries,”  claim  to  speak 
with  authority  on  complicated  questions  of  historical  devel- 
opment, or  pretend  to  possess  any  insight  into  the  meaning 
and  working  of  institutions?  The  laws  of  JE  recognize  a 
plurality  of  altars,  and,  as  these  are  for  purposes  of  lay  sacri- 
fice, we  may  properly  term  them  “ lay  altars  ” ; but  this  does 
not  justify  us  in  saying  that  a plurality  of  “ sanctuaries  ” is 
here  permitted.  Side  by  side  with  these  altars  we  see  in  the 
laws  something  else  — a house  of  the  Lord  — and  after  what 
has  been  said  it  is  plain  that  this  is  quite  different  from  a lay 
altar.  We  meet  with  similar  phenomena  alike  in  the  history 
and  in  Deuteronomy.  If  we  find  many  lay  altars,  we  also 
know  of  a House  of  the  Lord  at  Shiloh  at  which  sacrifices 
were  performed  with  the  assistance  of  a priesthood.  Simi- 
larly, later  on,  in  addition  to  the  Temple,  we  see  Naaman  seek- 
ing earth  for  an  altar,  and  we  conclude  that  in  the  history,  as 
in  the  Law,  it  was  possible  for  Temple  and  lay  altars  to  sub- 
sist side  by  side.  Nay,  more,  we  find  that  the  altar  of  the 
house  was  an  entirely  different  object  from  the  lay  altar.  We 
have  seen  that  Ex.  xx.  requires  an  altar  of  earth  or  unhewn 
stones.  Without  hewing  these  stones,  horns  could  not  be 
formed.  Yet  we  repeatedly  meet  with  an  altar  with  horns  at 
the  house,  i.e.  an  altar  of  the  type  of  Ex.  xxvii.,  quite  unlike 
the  lay  altars.  In  proof  of  this,  reference  may  be  made  to  1 
Kings  i.  50  f.  and  1 Kings  ii.  28  ff.,  showing  us  an  altar  with 
horns  before  the  erection  of  the  temple  in  the  very  age  in 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


65 


which  lay  altars  were  common.  That  altar  stood  in  front  of 
the  Ark,  i.e.  it  was  the  altar  of  the  temporary  “ house  ” of 
God.  Again,  Deut.  xvi.  21  recognizes  these  lay  altars  as  fully 
as  Ex.  xx.,  so  that  the  two  bodies  of  law  agree.  Then  it  be- 
comes necessary  to  inquire  what  offerings  could  or  should  be 
brought  to  each. 

THE  TRIPLE  SYSTEM  OF  OFFERINGS 
Close  investigation  shows  that  the  sacrificial  law  recognized 
a triple  system  of  offerings.  Before  the  days  ,of  Moses,  a cus- 
tom had  grown  up  by  which  every  Israelite  could  sacrifice  on 
an  occasion  of  joy  or  solemnity.  The  legislation  in  no  wise 
seeks  to  abrogate  this  custom,  but  it  contains  provisions  like 
the  law  of  Ex.  xx.,  which,  while  recognizing  its  validity, 
strove  to  protect  it  from  possible  abuses.  These  sacrifices, 
then,  we  may  call  customary  lay  offerings,  because  they  rest 
on  custom  and  are  offered  by  laymen  without  priestly  assist- 
ance. Moses,  however,  introduced  two  other  kinds  of  offer- 
ings— national  offerings,  such  as  we  find  in  Num.  xxviii  f. 
(which  were  brought  on  behalf  of  the  whole  people  and  not 
on  behalf  of  any  individual),  and  another  class  of  individual 
offerings,  which  were  to  be  presented  at  the  House  of  God 
with  priestly  assistance.  These  may  fairly  be  called  “ statu- 
tory individual  offerings  ” — statutory,  because  they  rest  on 
express  enactment,  and  not  on  custom,  as  was  the  case  with 
the  first  class  : individual,  because  they  were  presented  by  in- 
dividuals, and  not  on  behalf  of  the  whole  nation,  as  was  the 
case  with  the  second  class.  Hence  laws  relating  to  customary 
burnt-offerings  and  peace-offerings  recognize  their  presenta- 
tion at  lay  altar's,  while  laws  treating  of  statutory  individual 
burnt-offerings  and  peace-offerings  require  that  they  should 
be  brought  to  the  House  of  God. 


66 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


THE  PILGRIMAGES  IN  JE 

In  point  of  fact  the  statutory  individual  offering’s  are 
recognized  in  JE  as  fully  as  elsewhere.  Three  times  a year 
the  Israelite  was  to  present  himself  before  the  Lord.  The 
critics  wish  that  to  be  understood  of  a local  “ sanctuary,”  but 
in  vain.  One  of  the  appearances  was  on  “ the  feast  of  weeks, 
of  the  bikkurim  (a  kind  Of  first-fruits)  of  wheat  harvest  ” 
(Ex.  xxxiv.  22).  Now  according  to  JE,  the  bikkurim  were  to 
be  brought  to  the  house  of  the  Lord  (Ex.  xxiii.  19,  xxxiv.  26). 
No  contemporary  could  possibly  have  mistaken  a lay  altar  of 
earth  for  the  house  served  by  priests  who  were  to  have  the 
bikkurim.  Hence  religious  capital  and  pilgrimages  with  their 
consequent  offerings  are  as  well  known  to  this  part  of  the 
legislation  as  to  D or  P. 

THE  SELF-CONSISTENCY  OF  THE  LEGISLATION 

Thus,  when  all  the  available  facts  are  fully  and  fairly  ex- 
amined, the  Pentateuchal  legislation  on  these  matters  is  seen 
to  form  a single  consistent  whole,  and  the  practice  of  the  suc- 
ceeding ages  affords  us  illustrations  of  its  working.  After  the 
exile,  circumstances  had  changed,  and  an  interpretation  was 
placed  on  the  provisions  of  the  Law  which,  however  suitable 
to  the  necessities  of  the  period,  was  not  in  accordance  with 
what  was  historically  the  meaning  of  the  legislation.  The 
exile  had  stopped  the  lay  offerings  that  had  been  so  frequent 
before  but  could  not  be  offered  in  a foreign  land  (cp.  the  case 
of  Naaman  who  took  Israelitish  earth  in  order  to  be  able  to 
sacrifice  to  Israel’s  God  when  he  was  not  in  Canaan).  Hence 
the  laws  came  to>  be  construed  in  the  light  of  new  conditions 
by  men  who  were  not  familiar  with  the  original  meaning,  and 
this  has  given  rise  to  trouble. 

In  outline  this  is  the  answer  to  the  most  important  portion 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


07 

of  the  Graf-Wellhausen  hypothesis  — a portion  that  rests 
mainly  on  Wellhausen’s  inability  to  distinguish  between  a 
house  and  a mound  when  once  he  had  dubbed  both  “ sanctu- 
aries.” The  whole  question  will  be  found  fully  discussed  in 
Chapter  VI.  of  “ Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.”  Its  full 
consideration  is  too  technical  for  such  a discussion  as  the 
present. 

THE  PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 

From  the  consideration  of  the  places  and  classes  of  sacri- 
fice, it  is  natural  to  turn  to  those  whose  aid  was  essential  to 
the  due  performance  of  many  sacrificial  rites.  Here  the  critical 
school  present  us  with  numerous  difficulties  in  the  laws,  and 
also  with  a quantity  of  historical  reconstruction.  Wellhausen 
himself  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  “ the  position  of  the  Levites 
is  the  Achilles  heel  of  the  Priestly  Code.”  Tt  is  therefore 
necessary  to  look  into  this  portion  of  the  critical  case  with 
some  care.  A sketch  of  the  constructive  history  of  the  critical 
school  may  first  be  given. 

THE  WELLHAUSEN  RECONSTRUCTION 

Originally  Levite  was  the  name  of  a professional  priest 
(Ex.  iv.  14;  Judges  xvii.  7 “of  the  tribe  of  Judah  ”),  though 
there  had  also  been  an  old  secular  tribe  of  this  name.  In  the 
early  history  we  find  laymen  who  are  made  priests  — David’s 
sons  (2  Sam.  viii.  18),  Ira  the  Jairite  (2  Sam.  xx.  26),  Zabud, 
son  of  Nathan,  the  prophet  (1  Kings  iv.  5).  Samuel,  an  Eph- 
raimite,  sleeps  next  the  Ark  and  ministers  as  a priest  in  an 
ephod  of  linen.  David  and  Solomon  bless  the  people  like  the 
priests  of  P.  The  first  important  reference  to  the  Levites  is  in 
Deut.  xxxiii.  8 ff.,  an  older  poem  included  in  E.  Here  all 
Levites  exercise  priestly  functions.  This  is  the  standpoint  of 
Deuteronomy  in  the  reign  of  Josiah.  In  this  document  we  do 


68 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


not  hear  of  “ priests  sons  of  Aaron,”  and  “ Levites,”  as  two 
separate  classes : rather  priests  and  Levites  are  identified.  Thus 
the  phrase  “ the  priests,  the  Levites  ” occurs  frequently,  and 
in  one  passage  (xviii.  1)  we  even  read  of  “the  priests,  the 
Levites,  the  whole  tribe  of  Levi.”  In  xviii.  6-8  it  is  expressly 
enacted  that  any  Levite  coming  to  the  capital  is  to  “ minister 
there ....  as  do  all  his  brethren  the  Levites  which  stand  there 
before  the  Lord.  They  shall  have  like  portions  to  eat,”  etc. 
This,  it  is  said,  refers  to  the  dispossessed  priests  of  the  high 
places  that  were  abolished  by  Josiah’s  reformation.  (This  part 
of  the  scheme,  of  course,  depends  on  the  theory  of  a plurality 
of  lawful  “ sanctuaries  ” in  the  earlier  time,  and  falls  with  it.) 

EZEKIEL 

Then  Ezekiel  puts  forward  a program  in  a passage  of  supreme 
importance,  which  must  be  quoted  in  full : 

“And  thou  shalt  say  to  the  rebellious,  even  to  the  house  of 
Israel,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  God:  O ye  house  of  Israel,  let  it 
suffice  you  of  all  your  abominations,  in  that  ye  have  brought 
in  aliens,  uncircumcised  in  heart  and  uncircumcised  in  flesh, 
to  be  in  my  sanctuary,  to  profane  it,  even  my  house,  when  ye 
offer  my  bread,  the  fat  and  the  blood,  and  ye  [so  read  with 
LXX,  Syriac,  Vulgate]  have  broken  my  covenant  with  [so 
read  with  LXX,  Syriac,  Vulgate]  all  your  abominations.  And 
ye  have  not  kept  the  charge  of  mine  holy  things : but  ye  have 
set  [read  probably  “ them  as,”  changing  one  letter  of  the  He- 
brew] keepers  of  my  charge  in  my  sanctuary.  Therefore  [so 
read  with  LXX]  thus  saith  the  Lord  God:  No  alien,  uncircum- 
cised in  heart  and  uncircumcised  in  flesh,  shall  enter  into  my 
sanctuary,  of  any  alien  that  is  among  the  children  of  Israel. 
But  the  Levites  that  went  far  from  me,  when  Israel  went 
astray,  which  went  astray  from  me  after  their  idols : they  shall 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


69 


bear  their  iniquity.  Yet  they  shall  be  ministers  in  my  sanctu- 
ary, having  oversight  at  the  gates  of  the  house,  and  minister- 
ing in  the  house;  they  shall  slay  the  burnt-offering  and  the 
sacrifice  for  the  people,  and  they  shall  stand  before  them  to 
minister  unto  them.  Because  they  ministered  unto  them  be- 
fore their  idols,  and  became  a stumbling-block  of  iniquity  unto 
the  house  of  Israel ; therefore  have  I lifted  up  mine  hand 
against  them,  saith  the  Lord  God,  and  they  shall  bear  their 
iniquity.  And  they  shall  not  come  near  unto  me,  to  execute 
the  office  of  priest  unto  me,  nor  to  come  near  to  any  af  my 
holy  things,  unto  the  things  that  are  most  holy : but  they  shall 
bear  their  shame,  and  their  abominations  which  they  have 
committed.  Yet  will  I make  them  keepers  of  the  charge  of 
the  house  for  all  the  service  thereof,  and  for  all  that  shall  be 
done  therein.  But  the  priests  the  Levites,  the  sons  of  Zadok, 
that  kept  the  charge  of  my  sanctuary  when  the  children  of 
Israel  went  astray  from  me,  they  shall  come  near  to  me  to 
minister  unto  me  and  they  shall  stand  before  me  to  offer  unto 
me  the  fat  and  blood,  saith  the  Lord  God  : they  shall  enter  into 
my  sanctuary,  and  they  shall  come  near  to  my  table,  to  minis- 
ter unto  me,  and  they  shall  keep  my  charge.”  1 

Two  points  are  made  on  this  passage.  In  the  temple  of 
Solomon,  uncircumcised  strangers  must  have  performed  duties 
that  ought  only  to  have  been  discharged  by  members  of  the 
priestly  tribe.  It  is  admitted  quite  fairly  that  this  could  easily 
be  explained  by  the  hypothesis  that  abuses  had  crept  in.  But 
the  second  point  is  considered  more  important.  Ezekiel  is 
here  introducing  a new  distinction  — the  difference  between 
the  sons  of  Zadok  and  the  other  Levites  — and  he  is  intro- 
ducing it  avowedly  as  a complete  novelty.  Nay,  more,  he 
makes  this  a punishment  for  the  Levites  who  went  astray 
1 Ezek.  xliv.  6-16. 


70 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


after  the  idols.  It  is  a conscious  and  intentional  degradation. 
Had  they  remained  faithful,  they  would  have  been  entitled 
to  full  priestly  rights,  but  as  they  had  been  disloyal,  they  are 
now  “ to  bear  their  iniquity.”  How  could  Ezekiel  have  writ- 
ten thus  if  he  had  been  acquainted  with  P,  a law  of  Mosaic 
origin  giving  to  these  Levites  as  a privilege  that  which  the 
prophet  now  assigns  to  them  as  a punishment,  and  carrying 
back  to  the  days  of  the  desert  that  which  he  now  introduces  as 
a new  scheme  ? Does  not  this  prove  amply  that  Ezekiel  was 
unacquainted  with  P,  that  the  division  between  priests  and 
Levites  originated  in  the  brain  of  the  prophet,  and  was  then 
represented  by  the  priestly  writer  as  dating  back  to  the  earli- 
est period  of  national  independence? 

Lastly  comes  the  Chronicler.  In  the  books  of  Ezra,  Nehe- 
miah,  Chronicles,  we  see  the  division  between  priests  and 
Levites  consummated,  and  the  earlier  history  rewritten  to 
bring  it  into  accordance  with  this  idea.  Thus  P comes  be- 
tween Ezekiel  and  the  Chronicler.  He  takes  up  the  views  of 
the  one ; the  other  represents  the  working  of  his  completed 
system.  Ezekiel  from  being  the  most  unintelligible  writer  in 
the  Hebrew  Canon  becomes  the  “ father  of  Judaism.” 

ATTRACTIVENESS  OF  THIS  THEORY 

That  is  the  theory,  and  in  many  ways  it  is  an  extremely 
brilliant  theory.  It  contains  valuable  elements : when  the  his- 
tory of  the  critical  movement  comes  to  be  written  in  full,  it  is 
probable  that  this  theory  will  be  recognized  as  having  con- 
tained one  of  its  most  pregnant  contributions  to  our  knowl- 
edge of  the  history,  religion,  and  literature  ^of  ancient  Israel. 
It  restores  one  of  the  major  prophets  to  a place  of  honor  that 
he  never  occupied  in  the  conservative  scheme,  although  of 
course  it  is  fatal  to  the  Law.  But,  like  the  rest  of  Well- 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


71 


hausen’s  historical  reconstruction,  this  theory  will  not  bear 
examination.  Yet,  when  proper  tests  are  applied,  it  appears 
that  the  good  part  of  the  theory  — the  rehabilitation  of  Ezek- 
iel — largely  remains,  while  the  Mosaic  authenticity  of  P 
emerges  greatly  reinforced.  Here,  as  elsewhere,  the  critics 
have  mistaken  the  casket  for  the  jewel,  and  have  assumed 
that  because  the  former  is  made  of  baser  metal,  the  latter  can- 
not be  distinguished  from  it.  But  the  Law  is  not  necessarily 
identical  with  the  latest  traditional  explanations  or  even  with 
the  latest  form  of  the  text : and  it  can  be  shown  that  the  true 
course  of  history  was  quite  different  from  that  sketched  by 
the  critical  school. 

THE  TRUE  COURSE  OF  THE  HISTORY 

In  outline  that  course  is  as  follows : Moses  set  apart  the 

tribe  of  Levi  for  certain  desert  services.  These  would  cease 
with  the  conquest  of  Canaan  and  the  erection  of  the  Tent  of 
Meeting  at  Shiloh.  At  the  same  time  he  delivered  a body  of 
law  which  could  easily  be  administered  by  the  family  of  Aaron 
during  the  desert  period,  but  necessitated  the  creation  of  a 
numerous  and  scattered  priesthood  for  its  application  in  set- 
tled conditions.  In  Deuteronomy  the  natural  solution  of  the 
problem  thus  created  was  adopted ; but,  unfortunately,  a glos- 
sator who  read  the  words  of  Moses  many  centuries  after  his 
death,  when  conditions  were  entirely  different,  adopted  a very 
natural  misunderstanding  of  his  meaning  and  inserted  a sin- 
gle word  of  explanation.  The  explanation  was  historically 
erroneous,  and  consequently  its  presence  in  our  text  has  made 
the  provisions  of  the  law  as  to  Levites  and  the  work  of  Ezekiel 
unintelligible.  That  word  is  fortunately  missing  in  some  Sep- 
tuagintal  MSS.  and  should  be  removed.  It  is  the  Hebrew 
word  for  “ the  Levites  ” in  Deut.  xviii.  7.  Moses  enacted  that 


72 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


any  Levite  coming  to  the  religious  capital  could  minister  “ as 
all  his  brethren  do  which  stand  there  before  the  Lord.”  That 
would  place  him  or  a level  with  the  sons  of  Aaron:  and  we 
do,  in  fact,  find  that  all  our  authorities  from  Deuteronomy  to 
Malachi  regard  the  priesthood  as  Levitical.  But  later  a 
change  set  in,  and  in  the  days  of  the  glossator  priests  and 
Levites  were  two  sharply  distinguished  classes.  Hence  he 
thought  that  “ his  brethren  ” meant  “ his  fellow-Levites,”  and 
added  his  unhappy  note.  In  point  of  fact  he  misread  the 
meaning  of  Deuteronomy  in  the  light  of  the  circumstances  of 
his  own  age.  From  the  time  of  Deuteronomy  onwards  the 
legitimate  priesthood  was  Levitical  save  in  the  northern  king- 
dom. Priests  and  Levites  are  identified  in  the  book  of  Joshua. 
Judges  bears  witness  to  the  special  character  of  a Levite.  The 
author  of  Kings  complains  that  Jeroboam  “ made  priests  from 
among  all  the  people,  which  were  not  of  the  sons  of  Levi  ” 
(1  Kings  xii.  31),  not , be  it  observed,  “ which  were  not  of  the 
sons  of  Aaron.”  Jeremiah  (xxxiii.  17-24)  and  Malachi  (ii.) 
are  in  exact  agreement  with  this.  So  is  Ezekiel,  for  the  pas- 
sage quoted  above  shows  that  he  recognized  the  priestly  right 
pf  all  Levites  as  historically  true.  But  he  seeks  to  introduce 
a change  in  punishment  for  the  idolatry  of  all  save  the  sons  of 
Zadok,  i.e.  the  priests  of  Solomon’s  temple.  And  so1  he  goes 
back  to  the  old  desert  distinction  by  which  the  whole  priestly 
tribe  was  divided  into  two  classes  — a higher  and  a lower  — 
and  he  reintroduces  it  in  a modified  form.  For  the  sons  of 
Aaron  he  substitutes  the  sons  of  Zadok  — who  had  been  made 
high  priest  by  Solomon  (1  Kings  ii.  35;  cp.  27)  — and  he  re- 
enacts for  them,  with  slight  modifications,  the  Mosaic  legisla- 
tion as  to  the  sons  of  Aaron.  To  the  lower  grade  he  assigns 
duties  that  had  been  performed  by  foreigners.  His  language 
is  borrowed  from  the  Pentateuch,  but  he  invests  the  terms 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


73 


used  with  a new  meaning.  Subsequently  his  influence  pre- 
vailed and  the  distinction  between  priests  and  Levites  is  seen 
after  the  Exile. 

THE  CHOICE  OF  VIEWS 

In  deciding  between  these  alternatives  several  considera- 
tions must  be  carefully  weighed.  Does  P really  contemplate 
the  Mosaic  age  or  the  time  of  the  second  temple?  Was  Ezek- 
iel acquainted  with  P or  not?  Are  institutions  claimed  to  be 
post-exilic  found  in  operation  before  the  exile?  Can  the  gen- 
eral analysis  of  the  Pentateuch  and  the  dating  presupposed  by 
the  Wellhausen  theory  be  successfully  maintained?  To  a 
great  extent  these  questions  are  discussed  in  other  parts  of 
the  present  volume,  but  some  points  that  bear  especially  on 
the  present  topic  must  be  treated  here. 

THE  LEVITES  IN  “ P " 

When  the  provisions  relating  to  the  Levites  in  P are  care- 
fully scrutinized,  they  leave  no  doubt  as  to  the  purely  transi- 
tory nature  of  the  duties  assigned  to  them.  Thus  Num.  i. 
50-53  provides  as  follows : 

“And  do  thou  appoint  the  Levites  over  the  dwelling  of  the 
testimony  and  over  all  its  furniture  and  over  all  that  belong- 
eth  to  it,  they  shall  carry  the  dwelling  and  all  its  furniture  and 
they  shall  serve  it,  and  round  about  the  dwelling  shall  they 
camp.  And  when  the  dwelling  setteth  forward  the  Levites 
shall  take  it  down,  and  when  the  dwelling  is  to  be  pitched  the 
Levites  shall  set  it  up,  and  the  stranger  that  cometh  nigh  shall 
die.  . . . And  the  Levites  shall  pitch  round  about  the  dwelling 
of  the  testimony  ....  and  the  Levites  shall  have  the  charge  of 
the  dwelling  of  the  testimony.” 

It  would  be  out  of  place  here  to  consider  in  minute  detail 
the  other  passages  involved.  Those  who  desire  such  a dis- 


74 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


cussion  will  find  it  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  July,  1910. 
But  one  and  all  of  them  bear  witness  to  the  same  truth  — the 
fact  that  the  duties  assigned  to  the  Levites  in  Numbers  are 
duties  of  porterage,  and  so  forth,  that  could  not  possibly  be 
discharged  once  the  Ark  had  found  a permanent  resting-place 
after  the  conquest  — as  it  in  fact  did  at  Shiloh.  If  we  further 
test  the  meaning  of  P by  comparing  the  duties  assigned  to  the 
Levites  by  Ezekiel  and  Chronicles,  we  find  that  P excludes  the 
possibility  of  their  performing  the  same  functions  as  in  the 
latter  books.  For  example,  slaying  the  burnt-offering  and  the 
sacrifice  is  mentioned  by  Ezekiel,  but  in  P the  sacrificant  per- 
forms this  duty  himself  (Lev.  i.  ff.).  So,  too,  with  Chron- 
icles. When  we  read  that  the  Levites  were  “ for  the  service 
of  the  House  of  the  Lord  over  the  courts,  and  over  the  cham- 
bers, and  over  the  cleansing  of  every  holy  thing”  (1  Chron. 
xxiii.  28),  we  remember  not  merely  that  such  duties  nowhere 
appear  in  P,  but  that  that  document  knows  nothing  of  any 
chambers,  would  not  have  allowed  the  Levites  to  touch  many 
of  the  holy  things,  and  regarded  service  simply  as  porterage. 
Again,  1 Chron.  xxiii.  31  assigns  to  the  Levites  the  task  of 
offering  burnt-offerings  on  certain  occasions ; but  P expressly 
forbids  their  approaching  the  altar  (Num.  xviii.  3)  on  pain  of 
death  to  both  Levites  and  priests ! After  a detailed  examina- 
tion of  the  facts,  I have  summed  up  the  results  in  an  article 
that  appeared  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  July,  1910,  as  fol- 
lows : 

P DOES  NOT  REFLECT  POST-EX  1LTC  CONDITIONS 
“ First,  the  hypothesis  that  in  P we  have  a projection  of 
later  conditions  into  the  desert  period  breaks  down  under  the 
weight  of  P’s  data.  The  writer  conceives  the  Levites  pri- 
marily as  a body  of  sacred  porters  Now  nobody  living  in 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


any  subsequent  age  could  suppose  that  there  was  either  occa- 
sion or  possibility  to  carry  about  the  Temple.  If  we  are  really 
to  adopt  the  projection  theory  (according  to  which  the  duties 
of  the  Levites  in  P mirror  their  duties  in  the  second  Temple), 
we  must  imagine  a priestly  gentleman  picturing  to  himself 
sections  of  the  Temple  walls  and  bits  of  the  roof  as  being  car- 
ried about  at  odd  times  by  Levites  on  their  shoulders.  . . . The 
absurdity  of  this  proposition  must  surely  be  obvious  to  every- 
body. 

“ Secondly,  the  net  result  of  such  a scheme  would  be  to 
create  a body  of  Levites  for  use  during  the  period  of  the  wan- 
derings and  never  thereafter.  As  soon  as  the  desert  age  was 
over,  the  whole  tribe  would  find  their  main  occupation  gone. 
How  can  we  conceive  that  any  legislator  deliberately  sat  down 
and  invented  such  a scheme  centuries  after  the  epoch  to  which 
it  relates,  well  knowing  that  in  so  far  as  his  scheme  purported 
to  be  a narrative  of  events  it  was  fictitious  from  beginning  to 
end,  and  in  so  far  as  it  might  be  regarded  as  a legislation  ap- 
plicable to  his  own  or  any  future  day  there  was  not  a line  in 
it  that  could  conceivably  be  put  into  practice?  If  any  theorist 
can  be  conceived  as  acting  in  this  way,  how  are  we  to  sup- 
pose that  his  work  would  meet  with  acceptance?  Yet  that 
and  nothing  less  is  what  the  theory  demands. 

“ Thirdly,  P neither  embodies  the  views  of  Ezekiel  nor  finds 
an  accurate  reflection  in  Chronicles.  The  views  of  P are  quite 
different  from  those  of  the  other  two  books.  The  facts  are 
such  as  to  enable  us  to  say  definitely  that  P is  not  in  line  with 
them.  It  is  impossible  to  assume  that  he  appointed  the  death 
penalty  for  certain  acts  if  performed  by  Levites  because  he 
really  wished  the  Levites  to  perform  those  acts.”  1 
* 1 Bibliotheca  Sacra,  July,  1910,  pp.  495-496. 


76 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


THE  PRIESTS  IN  P 

Careful  examination  of  the  position  of  the  priests  in  P also 
confirms  the  sketch  of  the  history  given  above.  Take,  for  in- 
stance, the  laws  of  Lev.  xiii.  f.  “ Let  us  test  the  application  of 
these.  At  the  very  beginning  of  the  earlier  chapter  we  read 
that  a man  who  has  certain  symptoms  is  to  be  brought  to 
Aaron  the  priest  or  unto  one  of  his  sons.  Then  follow  rules 
for  inspecting  and  isolating  the  patient.  Remembering  that 
on  the  critical  theory  P assumes  the  capital  at  Jerusalem  as 
self-evident,  we  must  ask  how  such  provisions  were  to  work 
after  the  conquest.  During  the  desert  period  nothing  could 
have  been  simpler,  but  what  was  to  happen  when  the  Israel- 
ites dwelt  all  over  Canaan  from  Beersheba  to  Dan?  Nay 
more,  how  could  such  regulations  conceivably  occur  to  the 
mind  of  any  sane  man  during  or  after  the  exile  when  the  bulk 
of  the  Israelites  were  in  Babylonia  and  there  were  important 
Jewish  colonies  in  Egypt  and  elsewhere?  And  if  the  theory 
is  absurd  when  it  is  applied  to  men,  what  are  we  to  say  when 
we  read  of  leprous  garments  (Lev.  xiii.  47  ff.)  ? Was  a man 
to  make  the  pilgrimage  from  Babylonia  to  Jerusalem  to  con- 
sult a priest  about  a doubtful  garment?  And  what  about  the 
leper’s  offerings  in  chapter  xiv.  ? Could  they  conceivably 
have  been  meant  to  apply  to  such  circumstances  ? ” 1 

Further  details  must  be  sought  in  the  article  to  which  ref- 
erence has  been  made. 

MINOR  POINTS 

The  minor  points  in  Wellhausen’s  theory  need  not  detain 
us  long.  It  is  certainly  true  that  there  are  passages  in  Judges, 
Samuel,  and  Kings  on  which  Wellhausen  relies  that  present 
difficulty  when  read  in  the  Massoretic  text,  but  it  is  also,  the 
bibliotheca  Sacra,  July,  1910,  pp.  501-502. 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


77 


case  that  the  Versions  often  enable  us  to  solve  the  difficulties 
with  comparative  ease.  " 

The  discussion  is  omitted  at  this  point  because  it  is  some- 
what technical,  and  anybody  who  wishes  to  go  into  the  matter 
further  can  consult  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  article  ; but  it  may 
be  said  generally  that  the  LXX  knew  nothing  of  Jonathan’s 
being  a member  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  or  of  the  alleged  priest- 
hood of  David’s  sons  or  Zabud,  while  Ira  is  in  some  of  the  old 
authorities  not  a Jairite,  but  a Jattirite,  i.  e.  a person  from  the 
priestly  city  Jattir.  On  the  other  hand,  there  are  a number  of 
instances  where  Wellhausen  has  read  into  the  texts  meanings 
that  they  will  not  bear.  Take  the  alleged  priesthood  of  Sam- 
uel at  Shiloh.  Samuel  was  taken  there  when  he  was  weaned. 
Weaning  sometimes  takes  place  very  late  in  the  East  — when 
the  child  is  as  old  as  three.  It  is  therefore  possible  that  he 
was  as  much  as  four  years  old  when  he  went  to  Shiloh.  What 
priestly  functions  can  he  possibly  have  performed  at  that  age? 
It  is  true  that  he  must  have  grown  older  every  day,  but  when 
we  read  of  his  mother’s  bringing  him  a little  garment,  we  see 
that  the  whole  narrative  refers  to  his  childhood.  He  was 
page,  not  priest  Nor  again  does  the  narrative  suggest  that 
he  slept  by  the  side  of  the  Ark.  He  did  sleep  in  the  building 
and  acted  as  porter:  but  that  is  quite  different  from  sleeping 
next  to  the  Ark.  Again,  it  is  not  obvious  wrhy  David  and  Sol- 
omon should  not  have  blessed  the  people.  Nothing  could  be 
more  natural  than  that  a king  should  invoke  God’s  blessing 
on  his  subjects,  and  the  language  used  shows  in  some  instances 
that  the  blessing  was  not  the  priestly  blessing  (1  Kings  viii. 
55  ff.).  Lastly,  Ex.  iv.  14  does  not  mean  that  there  existed 
an  otherwise  unknown  profession  of  Levites.  “ The  Levite  ” 
is  simply  part  of  Aaron’s  full  designation,  as  is  proved  by  all 
the  other  passages  that  bear  on  the  question. 


78 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


FIRSTLINGS 

Other  minor  questions  are  linked  with  this.  Of  these,  the 
case  of  firstlings  may  be  taken  as  an  example:  “Not  the 

least  of  the  troubles  that  await  biblical  investigators . is  the  use 
of  technical  terms.  The  obscurity  that  has  beset  some  of 
these  is  the  main  cause  of  the  inability  of  biblical  students  to 
understand  the  law  as  to  firstlings.  Shortly  stated,  the  main 
effect  of  the  various  provisions  is  to  enact  that  every  male 
firstling  shall  be  holy,  — a technical  term  meaning  that  it  is 
to  be  withdrawn  from  ordinary  use,  and  sacrificed,  — and  that 
these  ‘ holy  ’ firstlings  are  to  be  brought  to  the  religious  cen- 
ter. Then  a due  (called  a ‘heave-offering/  the  amount  of 
which  lay  in  the  discretion  of  the  sacrificant,  but  which  ap- 
pears generally  to  have  consisted  of  one  or  more  of  the  ani- 
mals) was  to  be  paid  to  the  priest,  while  the  owner  and  his 
family  consumed  the  rest  at  a feast.  Now  it  happens  that 
this  has  to  be  collected  from  various  passages  in  different 
books  of  the  Pentateuch.  Deuteronomy  — the  book  intended 
for  public  reading  to  the  people  — contains  the  command  to 
bring  the  firstlings  to  the  religious  center  and  hold  the  feast. 
In  a passage  of  Numbers  that  deals  with  dues,  the  rule  as  to 
paying  a heave-offering  is  laid  down,  while  a third  passage 
dealing  with  the  internal  priestly  arrangements  makes  pro- 
vision for  the  disposition  of  the  heave-offering  when  received. 
Owing  chiefly  to  failure  to  understand  the  principles  of  ar- 
rangement and  the  technical  terms  employed,  the  commen- 
tators have  thought  that  there  was  an  antinomy  between 
Deuteronomy  and  Numbers,  while  they  have  failed  to  bring 
the  passage  which  really  supplies  the  key  to  the  whole  prob- 
lem (Num.  v.  9-10)  into  relation  with  the  other  laws  that 
treat  of  the  subject.  For  detailed  proof  of  what  has  been 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


79 


said  about  firstling’s,  see  the  Churchman  for  July,  1906,  pp. 
426-430,  and  September,  1906,  pp.  554,  555.”  1 

THE  SLAVE  LAWS 

The  remaining  legal  difficulties  will  be  found  discussed  in 
the  writer’s  “ Studies  in  Biblical  Law  ” and  the  various  arti- 
cles he  has  contributed  to  the  Churchman  and  the  Bibliotheca 
Sacra.  Perhaps  the  most  interesting  case  is  provided  by  the 
slave  laws.  Moses  enacted  that  a Hebrew  slave  could  go  out 
in  the  seventh  year  after  purchase,  or  in  the  alternative  could 
elect  to  stay  with  his  master,  in  which  case  he  was  to>  remain 
a slave  for  ever.  So  far  no  difficulty  arises,  but  we  must  be 
careful  to  note  that  the  law  only  applies  to  the  purchase  of  a 
Hebrew  slave.  In  ancient  Israel,  slavery  arose  in  many  ways. 
There  are  repeated  references  to  birth  as  well  as  purchase  as 
a source  of  property  in  slaves  (Gen.  xiv.  14;  xvii.  12;  Ex.  xxi. 
4,  etc.).  We  also  meet  with  gift  (Gen.  xx.  14),  capture  in 
war  (xiv.  21 ; xxxiv.  29),  crime  (xliii.  18;  xliv.).  In  most  of 
these  cases  the  slaves  would  not  be  Hebrews,  but  they 
would  be  circumcised  (Gen.  xvii.),  and  would  thereafter 
be  regarded  as  such.  But  they  would  still  be  slaves.  There 
are  world-wide  parallels  to  all  these  methods  of  acquir- 
ing slaves  and  they  call  for  no  comment.  There  was  how- 
ever yet  another  cause  that  was  universal  in  antiquity  — 
insolvency  (Gen.  xlvii.  19).  In  most  ancient  societies  this  led 
to  full  slavery,  but  in  some  the  freeman  who  became  insolvent 
remained  free  in  the  eye  of  the  law  but  was  compelled  to  serve 
his  creditors  like  a slave.  That  may  seem  to  be  a distinction 
without  a difference,  but  in  Rome,  for  example,  the  differences 
were  very  important.  The  free  bondman  retained  certain 
civic  rights  and  duties  — such  as  liability  to  fight  for  his  city, 
bibliotheca  Sacra,  January.  1907.  p.  11. 


80 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


In  Lev.  xxv.  Moses  deals  with  such  cases.  His  regulations 
have  been  widely  misunderstood  and  thought  to  be  slave  laws : 
but  when  we  apply  to  them  ordinary  legal  methods  we  see 
that  this  is  not  so.  Thus  he  begins  “If  thy  brother  be  waxen 
poor,  and  sell  himself  ” (ver.  39).  In  order  to  wax  poor  and 
sell  himself,  a man  must  first  be  free.  One  who  was  already 
a slave  could  not  wax  poor : still  less  could  he  sell  himself.  It 
is  for  this  reason  that  it  is  provided  that  this  ‘ brother  ’ is  not 
to  be  treated  as  a slave.  In  fact,  the  Hebrew  freeman  who 
became  insolvent  was  not  to  become  a slave.  He  was  to  serve 
his  creditor  till  the  year  of  the  jubilee,  when  he  was  to  return 
to  his  former  status.  On  the  other  hand,  the  stranger  who 
became  insolvent  was  to  become  a slave  in  the  ordinary  way, 
the  benefits  of  the  jubilee  law  not  being  applied  to  him.  No 
competent  jurist  who  examined  the  original  carefully  without 
bias  could  come  to  any  other  conclusion  as  to  its  meaning. 
There  is  no  discrepancy  between  the  law  for  Hebrew  slaves 
and  the  jubilee  law  which  relates  solely  to  insolvent  Hebrew 
freemen. 


IV 


\ 

THE  LITERARY  ARGUMENT 

So  much  confusion  prevails  as  to  the  scope  and  effect  of  the 
so-called  literary  arguments,  especially  among  those  who  are 
not  Hebraists,  that  it  is  desirable  to  explain  with  some  degree 
of  fullness  exactly  what  is  and  what  is  not  meant.  The  fol- 
lowing is  an  extract  from  an  article  which  appeared  in  the 
Princeton  Theological  Review  for  October,  1907,  in  which 
the  writer  has  sought  to  explain  as  clearly  as  he  could  the 
precise  nature  of  this  branch  of  the  higher  critical  case : 

“Our  first  task  must  be  to  enquire  what  is  meant  by  the 
philological  or  literary’  argument.  The  word  philology  is 
often  used  to  denote  the  science  of  the  history  of  language. 
It  is  not  in  that  sense  that  the  higher  critics  generally  use  the 
term  when  they  put  forward  their  ‘ philological  ’ argument 
for  the  documentary  theory.  It  is  necessary  to  dwell  on  this 
point  because  many  readers  who  are  not  Hebraists  suppose 
that  there  are  philological  grounds  (the  term  ‘philological’ 
being  used  in  the  sense  just  indicated)  for  the  divisive  hy- 
pothesis. That  is  not  so.  Material  drawn  from  the  real  or 
supposed  history  of  the  Hebrew  language  is  scarcely  ever  put 
in  the  forefront  of  the  critical  case.  . . . The  following  extract 
from  the  Oxford  Hexateuch  gives  us  a representative  state- 
ment of  the  ordinary  argument: 

“ * But  it  may  reasonably  be  expected  that  materials  of  dif- 
ferent ages,  drawn  from  separate  sources,  will  be  marked  by 
their  own  characteristics  of  style  or  expression.  Peculiar 
turns  of  phrase,  due  to  the  vivacity  of  oral  narrative,  or  sig- 


82 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


nificant  of  legal  precision,  or  repeated  by  the  impassioned 
earnestness  of  the  preacher,  may  be  found  to  coincide  with 
different  groups  of  narrative  or  law  already  distinguished 
from  each  other  by  incompatibilities  of  content.  The  recur- 
rence of  these  peculiarities  becomes  in  its  turn  a warning ; and 
each  additional  instance,  in  accordance  with  the  general  law 
of  probabilities,  brings  far  more  than  its  own  individual 
weight.  Moreover  their  effect  is  again  heightened  if  there  is 
reason  to  believe  that  they  can  be  in  any  way  connected  with 
other  forces  of  thought  and  life.  The  journalist  who  .should 
lightly  talk  of  “ the  tendency  not  ourselves  ” or  of  “ sweetness 
and  light  ” might  safely  be  placed  with  Matthew  Arnold  in 
the  second  half  of  the  Victorian  age.  The  teacher  who  dwelt 
on  “ the  silences  ” and  “ the  eternities  ” could  not  have  taught 
before  Carlyle.  A cause  must  be  found  for  the  different  phil- 
osophical vocabulary  of  Coleridge  compared  with  that  of 
Hume.  The  devotional  utterance  of  Watts  and  Doddridge  is 
couched  in  a different  idiom  from  that  of  Newman  and  Faber. 
In  the  same  way  if  one  group  of  chapters  which  there  is  inde- 
pendent reason  to  assign  To  the  seventh  century,  shows 
marked  affinities  of  expression  with  Jeremiah,  and  another 
group  with  Ezekiel,  it  may  be  possible  to  explain  the  resem- 
blances on  the  hypothesis  of  the  indebtedness  of  the  prophets, 
but  the  student  must  also  consider  the  probability  that  they 
may  be  due  to  the  influences  of  separate  religious  schools.’ 

*■  It  will  be  seen  that  nothing  is  here  said  of  phonetic  evo- 
lution or  the  history  of  words.  The  argument  is  not  philolog- 
ical in  the  narrow  sense  of  the  word.  But  attention  is  drawn 
to  the  fact  that  there  may  be  differences  of  style ; and  it  is 
suggested  that  in  certain  circumstances  there  may  be  some 
connection  between  these  and  other  forces  of  thought  and 
life.  We  must  notice  too  that  in  this  passage  — which  gives 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


83 


us  a very  fair  and  moderate  exposition  of  the  line  of  argument 
adopted  by  most  higher  critics  — several  qualifications  are  in- 
troduced. It  is  first  supposed  that  different  groups  of  narra- 
tive or  law  are  already  distinguished  by  incompatibilities  of 
content.  That  is  to  say,  the  writer  in  the  first  instance  assigns 
to  the  stylistic  argument  an  ancillary  character.  Then  he  very 
fairly  admits  that  resemblances  between  Jeremiah  or  Ezekiel 
on  the  one  hand  and  certain  portions  of  the  Pentateuch  on  the 
other  may  possibly  be  explained  on  the  hypothesis  of  the  in- 
debtedness of  the  prophets : and  a moment’s  thought  will  con- 
vince any  impartial  reader  that  such  a view  contains  nothing 
that  is  improbable.  If,  for  example,  Deuteronomy  — whether 
a genuine  work  of  Moses  or  a recent  literary  forgery  — was 
discovered  (or  rediscovered)  in  the  time  of  Jeremiah,  it  can 
occasion  no  surprise  that  it  should  have  exercised  a powerful 
influence  on  his  style.  A further  claim  is  however  made  for 
the  argument.  ‘ The  recurrence  of.  these  peculiarities  becomes 
in  its  turn  a warning  ’ ; in  plain  English  the  Pentateuch  is  dis- 
sected in  part  on  grounds  of  style.”  1 

THE  BIAS  AND  INACCURACY  OF  THE  CRITICS 
That  an  argument  from  style  is  necessarily  very  subjective 
must  be  obvious  to  every  thinking  reader.  In  the  present 
case  there  are  many  considerations  to  be  urged  in  reply. 
There  are,  first,  the  bias  and  the  inaccuracy  that  are  unfor- 
tunately so  obvious  to  every  impartial  reader.  For  example, 
a critic  will  contend  that  the  phrase  “ land  of  Egypt  ” is  char- 
acteristic of  P,  but  will  pass  over  in  silence  the  fact  that  it 
occurs  in  J and  E.  Often,  too,  the  statements  made  are  quite 
inaccurate.  All  the  lists  of  words  require  much  sifting  before 
they  can  be  accepted.  Investigations  of  this  nature  are  neces- 
*The  Princeton  Theological  Review,  October.  1007.  pp.  600-000. 


84 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


sarily  too  detailed  for  the  present  discussion,  but  it  is  desira- 
ble that  readers  should  note  that  the  critical  statements  in 
this  department  must  be  taken  with  a grain  of  salt.  Another 
striking  feature  is  the  circular  reasoning  that  is  also  frequent. 
A passage  will  he  assigned  to  a particular  document  on  the 
ground  that  it  contains  a given  phrase,  and  then  this  phrase 
will  be  cited  as  characteristic  of  this  document.  “ To  take  an 
illustration:  in  Ex.  iii.  19  we  find  a.  particular  use  of  the  in- 
finitive. This  is  assigned  by  the  editors  of  the  new  English 
edition  of  Gesenius’s  Hebrew  lexicon  to  J,  but  by  Mr.  Car- 
penter to  a redactor  on  the  ground  partly  that  this  is  an  E 
phrase.  Then  this  phrase  is  quoted  in  the  E list  of  words  to 
distinguish  E from  other  documents.”1  It  would  be  quite 
easy  to  cite  one  instance  after  another  of  reasoning  of  this 
type:  but  it  would  merely  make  the  discussion  unnecessarily 
tedious.  Examples  will  be  found  in  Dr.  Orr’s  “ Problem  of 
the  Old  Testament.” 

THE  REDACTORS 

Another  great  argument  against  the  critical  contention  is 
supplied  by  the  fact  that  redactors  must  constantly  be  postu- 
lated to  remove  difficulties.  For  instance,  as  already  men- 
tioned, there  are  two  words  for  bondwoman.  It  is  then  said 
that  E uses  amah  while  J employs  shifchah.  Now  take  such 
a chapter  as  Gen.  xx. ; both  words  occur  here.  What  is  to  be 
done?  The  chapter  is  given  to  E,  and  accordingly  the  use  of 
amah  in  verse  17  is  in  order:  shifchah  in  verse  14,  however,  is 
certainly  troublesome.  Therefore  a redactor  is  said  to  have 
introduced  the  phrase  in  this  verse.  When  it  is  remembered 
that  the  main  clue  — the  use  of  Elohim  in  this  chapter  — is 
disposed  of  by  the  textual  evidence,  the  difficulties  of  this 
line  of  reasoning  become  obvious.  The  argument  in  reply 
1 Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism,  p.  79. 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


85 


derives  further  strength  from  a fact  to  be  noted  hereafter  in 
another  connection  — viz.  that  ‘ dream/  which  is  supposed  to 
point  to  E rather  than  to  J,  is  in  reality  a feature  common 
to  both  “ sources/’  When  one  distinguishing  characteristic 
after  another  goes  by  the  board,  it  is  impossible  to  urge  with 
any  shadow  of  probability  that  a troublesome  phrase  is  due  to 
a redactor  whose  existence  has  to  be  assumed  merely  to  en- 
able the  critics  to  claim  a particular  word  as  distinctive  of  a 
source.  Indeed,  the  backbone  of  the  distinction  between  J 
and  E is  furnished  by  the  Divine  appellations  and  the  Joseph 
story.  It  has  been  shown  that  not  the  slightest  reliance  can 
be  placed  on  the  critical  contentions  with  respect  to  either  of 
these,  and  it  is  highly  probable  that  as  these  facts  gradually 
sink  into  the  minds  of  the  critics  they  will  jettison  the  whole 
JE  analysis. 

Other  causes  of  some  of  the  phenomena  claimed  by  the 
critics  as  distinctive  and  the  answers  to  their  arguments  ap- 
pear in  the  following  paragraphs,  which  are  transcribed  from 
an  article  that  appeared  in  the  Princeton  Theological  Review 
for  October,  1907 : 

STRANGENESS  OF  THE  SELECTION  OF  WORDS 

“ First,  then,  their  selection  of  words  frequently  causes  pro- 
found amazement.  Take  the  following  from  an  argument  in 
the  Oxford  Hexateuch  as  to  the  first  seven  chapters  of  Levit- 
icus: ‘Attention  may  also  be  called  to  the  large  group  of 
cultus  terms  and  formulae,  the  constant  repetition  of  which 
is  characteristic  of  the  legal  style  of  P : thus,  Aaron's  sons, 
atonement,  without  blemish  (perfect),  bring  near  (offer, 
present),  burn,  burn  with  fire,  clean,  guilt  offering,  heave  of- 
fering, holy,  kill,  lay  his  hand  on,  meal  offering,  oblation, 
offering  made  by  fire,  sacrifice  of  peace  offerings,  etc.’  It  will 


86 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


be  noted  that  all  the  above  are  technical  terms  or  terms  that 
are  peculiarly  appropriate  in  regulations  for  sacrifice  at  the 
religious  capital.  This  is  emphasized  if  we  take  the  words 
that  might  appear  to  an  English  reader  to  be  general  words 
and  follow  up  the  remarks  made  about  them  in  the  Oxford 
Hexateuch , itself.  Thus  on  the  word  ‘ burn  ’ we  find  the  fol- 
lowing: ‘Ex.  xxix.  13-Num.  xviii.  17  (sacrificially)  forty- 

four  times,’  and  of  ‘ kill  ’ we  read : ‘ Ex.  xii.  6 and  onwards, 
forty-two  times,  ritually.’  The  argument  therefore  amounts 
to  saying  that  in  a technical  passage  technical  terms  are  used. 
To  give  it  any  force  at  all  it  would  be  necessary  to  prove 
either  that  ‘ P ’ would  have  used  these  terms  in  narrative, 
speeches,  civil  laws,  etc.,  if  he  had  composed  the  whole  Pen- 
tateuch, or  else  that  ‘ D ’ or  ‘ JE  ’ would  not  have  used  them 
in  technical  sacrificial  regulations.  It  need  scarcely  he  said 
that  no  attempt  is  or  can  be  made  to  prove  anything  of  the 
sort.” 

LITERARY  FEELING 

“A  second  defect  in  the  critical  work  is  due  to  the  inability 
of  its  authors  to  appreciate  the  subtle  motives  that  influence 
great  writers.  Civilians  have  a division  of  ‘ things  ’ that  re- 
curs to  the  mind  — fungible  things  and  non-fungible  things. 
Fungible  things  are  those  quae  pondere,  numero,  mensurave 
constant  — things  that  are  weighed,  counted,  or  measured,— 
such  as  money,  wine,  oil,  corn,  bronze,  silver,  gold.  Non- 
fungible  things  are  all  others.  For  the  critics  words  are  mere 
fungible  things.  For  great  artists  they  are  non-fungible. 
That  is  the  secret  of  many  phenomena  that  puzzle  modern 
commentators.  Eye  and  ear  — especially  ear  — are  needed  to 
appreciate  the  choice  of  words ; and  a sense  of  form  and  an 
apprehension  of  subtle  shades  of  meaning  of  which  no  signs 
are  to  be  found  in  the  critical  work.  . . . Confining  ourselves 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


87 


to  mere  single  words  or  expressions  it  is  impossible  to  give 
instances  that  would  be  intelligible  to  readers  who  are  not 
Hebraists,  but  if  we  go  beyond  these  it  is  easy  to  produce  a 
most  convincing  example.  There  can  be  few  English  readers 
who  have  not  admired  the  sublime  opening  of  the  book  of 
Genesis.  Here  is  the  usual  critical  version : ‘ These  are  the 
generations  of  the  heaven  and  the  earth  when  they  were 
created.  In  the  beginning,  etc.’  The  explanation  given  by  the 
Oxford  ITexateuch  should  prove  illuminating.  ‘ It  has  long 
been  recognized  that  the  Book  of  Genesis  is  primarily  based 
upon  a document  containing  a series  of  sections  introduced 
by  the  formula  “ These  are  the  generations  of.  . . . The  toled- 
hoth  [i.e  “generations  of.”  H.  M.  W.]  formula  of  Gen.  ii. 
4a  is  not  appropriate  to  the  narrative  which  follows  it  in  ii. 
4b  ff.,  for  this  says  nothing  about  the  creation  of  the  heavens 
or  the  earth,  but  deals  with  the  formation  of  the  first  man 
after  they  were  made.  On  the  other  hand  its  form  and  sub- 
stance are  both  congruous  with  the  account  of  the  creation  of 
the  universe  in  i.  1 — ii.  3.  In  other  sections,  however,  the 
formula  always  precedes  the  matter  which  it  designates.  It 
is  probable,  therefore,  that  it  originally  stood  before  i.  1,  and 
was  transposed  .by  the  editor  who  combined  the  two  docu- 
ments, to  serve  as  the  link  of  combination.’ 

“ So  not  only  words,  but  sections  and  sentences  are  to  the 
critics  fungible  things  — things  quae  pondere,  numero,  men - 
surave  constant.  If  I borrow  a sovereign,  I am  under  an 
obligation  to  pay  back  a sovereign  — any  sovereign  — not 
necessarily  the  actual  coin  I borrow.  All  are  legal  tender. 
And  similarly  with  the  book  of  Genesis.  If  I do  not  begin  with 
one  sentence,  I must  begin  with  another.  All  are  legal  ten- 
der ; and  literary  considerations  — using  the  word  ‘ literary  ’ 
in  its  best  sense  — do  not  enter  into  the  question.  But  as  all 


88 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


sovereigns  conform  to  a certain  type,  so  must  all  the  sections 
of  ‘ P ’ in  Genesis.  There  is  no  difference  between  the  mint- 
ing of  coins  and  the  minting  of  sections  of  Genesis. 

“ But  what  if  literature  is  not  within  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  foot-rule?  How  if  a commentator  on  a great  author 
must  be  endowed  with  jsome  appreciation  of  literary  beauty, 
if  he  is  to  perform  his  task  successfully?” 

CRITICAL  LACK  OF  JUDGMENT 

“ The  next  cause  that  falls  to  be  noticed  is  the  lack  of 
judgment  and  the  inability  to  weigh  evidence  that  charac- 
terise the  application  of  the  critical  tests.  For  the  sake  of 
brevity  the  first  instance  will  be  taken  from  Genesis,  since  in 
that  book  it  is  easy  to  find  examples  limited  to  a single  verse. 
In  a genealogy  we  read  ‘And  Lamech  lived  an  hundred  eighty 
and  two  years,  and  begat  a son  ’ (Gen.  v.  28).  The  whole  of 
this  down  to  ‘ begat  ’ is  given  by  the  Oxford  Hexateuch  to 
‘ P,’  but  ‘ a son  ’ is  assigned  to  ‘ J ’ — an  author  who  ; with 
truly  prophetic  foresight  took  the  unusual  step  of  composing 
the  end  of  the  sentence  some  centuries  before  ‘ P ’ wrote  the 
beginning.  The  reason  given  throws  much  light  on  the  anal- 
ysis. The  preceding  items  in  this  genealogy  all  conform 
to  the  type  ‘And  A lived  x years  and  begat  B.’  Accordingly 
we  read  in  the  note : ‘ The  uniformity  of  P’s  style  leads  us  to 
expect  here  the  name  of  Noah.  The  compiler,  however, 
wishing  apparently  to  utilize  J’s  explanation  of  it,  has  in- 
serted it  at  this  point,  having  no  doubt  found  it  in  the  list 
which  traced  Noah’s  descent  through  Seth  iv.  25  f.  That 
pedigree  has  apparently  been  rejected  by  the  editor  in  favour 
of  the  more  highly  systematized  scheme  of  P,  etc.’  In  other 
words  ‘ P ’ could  not  have  written  ‘ a son  ’ in  vs.  28  because 
he  has  not  done  so  in  other  verses,  ^and  we  can  feel  the  ge- 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


89 


nius  of  fungible  things  — things  quae  pondere,  numero,  men- 
surave  constant  — hovering  over  us.  It  would  be  interesting 
to  know  what  course  was  open  to  * P ’ if  he  too  desired  to 
give  an  explanation  of  Noah’s  name.  Are  the  premises  in 
any  way  commensurate  to  the  conclusion?  Would  it  not  be 
easier  to  suppose  that  ‘ P ’ could  vary  his  language  when  oc- 
casion demanded  than  to  postulate  this  extraordinary  ma- 
chinery of  lists  and  compilers?  ” 1 

THE  EFFECT  OF  GLOSSES  ON  STYLE 
It  is  necessary  at  this  point  to  remind  the  reader  of  another 
cause  to  which  reference  has  already  been  made  — the  activ- 
ity of  glossators.  When  we  find  a text  in  some  ancient  Ver- 
sion that  is  identical  with  our  present  Hebrew  in  sense  but 
obviously  goes  back  to  an  original  that  was  shorter  in  the 
number  of  words  employed,  we  naturally  ask  which  is  the 
nearer  to  the  author’s  composition?  Very  often  the  balance 
of  probability  is  in  favor  of  the  shorter  text,  the  additional 
words  being  mere  explanatory  notes  by  later  annotators.  It 
is  just  these  words  that  swell  the  extraordinary  lists  of  the 
higher  critics,  which  would  bear  a very  different  appearance 
if  due  attention  had  first  been  given  to  a thorough  and  scien- 
tific sifting  of  the  available  textual  material. 

Yet  when  all  allowances  have  been  made  for  the  causes 
indicated  above  there  remains  a residuum  of  argument  and 
this  is  due  to  other  reasons. 

STYLE  NOT  NECESSARILY  A CRITERION  OF  AUTHORSHIP 
“ The  critical  case  rests  on  the  assumption  that  differences 
of  style  prove  differences  of  authorship.  What  has  the  com- 
parative method  to  teach  us  as  to  this  premiss?  Does  it  con- 
firm its  soundness  ? The  answer  — which  sweeps  away  the 
1 The  Princeton  Theological  Review,  October,  1907.  pp.  613-017. 


90 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


foundations  of  the  critical  argument  — is  in  the  negative. 
There  is  a passage  in  Norden’s  Kunstprosa  — not  to  be 
translated  for  fear  of  losing  the  flavour  of  the  original  — in 
which  the  author  asks  what  influence  the  individuality  of  the 
writer  had  on  his  style  in  the  ancient  world,  or,  in  other 
words,  how  far  Buffoirs  le  style  est  Vhomme  memo  holds 
good  for  that  period.  Norden  concludes  that  style  was  an 
acquired  art,  that  individuality  was  subordinated  in  a far 
higher  degree  than  to-day,  and  that  one  and  the  same  writer 
could  write  in  different  styles  according  to  the  task  in  hand. 
The  case  of  Moses  is  to  some  extent  different  from  that  of 
any  classical  writer.  He  could  have  had  stylistic  models  only 
within  very  narrow  limits.  A few  traditions,  a few  songs 
and  poems,  a few  * dooms  ’ pronounced  by  the  elders,  would 
have  constituted  the  sum  total  of  the  Hebrew  literature  that 
he  found.  Nevertheless  I see  no  difficulty  in  supposing  that 
when  occasion  demanded  he  was  capable  of  creating  a style 
suitable  for  the  matter  in  hand.  After  all,  the  purposes  of 
the  various  portions  of  the  Pentateuchal  legislation  are  pal- 
pably diverse.  While  the  judgments  are  written  in  a form 
suitable  for  memorising  (which  may  have  conformed  to 
what  was  usual  in  the  traditional  ‘ dooms  ’ pronounced  by  the 
courts  of  elders) — it  is  obvious  that  no  speech  could  have 
been  composed  in  the  same  style.  Here,  then,  necessity  must 
have  been  the  mother  of  invention.  And  in  dealing  with  the 
third  style  — that  of  the  great  body  of  ‘ priestly  ’ legislation 
— it  must  be  remembered  that  the  purpose  was  again  differ- 
ent. Here  we  are  not  dealing  either  with  a speech  or  with 
dooms  to  be  committed  to  memory,  but  with  complicated  and 
technical  rules  to  be  transmitted  by  a specially  trained  class 
who  would  teach  the  people.  It  is  possible  to  point  to  mod- 
ern instances  of  similar  versatility.  Let  the  Indian  Penal  Code 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


91 


which  was  drafted  by  Macaulay  be  contrasted  with  the 
speeches  and  ballads  of  the  same  writer  and  similar  diver- 
gencies of  vocabulary  and  rhythm  will  at  once  become  appar- 
ent. If  it  be  urged  that  Macaulay  came  after  a period  of 
long  literary  development,  I answer  (1)  that  it  is  impossible 
to  lay  down  narrow  rules  which  no  genius  can  transcend,  and 
(2)  that  no  man,  however  gifted,  could  have  written  ‘ dooms  ’ 
and  speeches  in  the  same  vocabulary  and  rhythm  and  made  a 
success  of  both.  A man  of  genius  who  found  himself  con- 
fronted with  such  very  different  tasks  could  not  avoid  cre- 
ating the  means  of  executing  them.  In  a word,  I conceive 
that  in  each  case  the  style  was  merely  a tool  forged  by  Moses 
for  the  accomplishment  of  his  purpose.”  1 
1 The  Princeton  Theological  Review,  October,  1907,  pp.  622-624. 


HIGHER  CRITICAL  ARGUMENTS  AND  POSITIONS 
THAT  ARE  DUE  TO  PURELY  SUBJECT- 
IVE CAUSES 


Hitherto  the  discussion  has  been  concerned  with  topics 
where  the  Hebrew  text  or  the  traditional  explanations  of  the 
laws  did  in  fact  appear  to  present  some  real  difficulty  or  at 
least  some  justification  for  the  contention  of  critics  who  had 
no  special  training  and  no  qualifications  for  literary  criticism. 
We  have  now  to  draw  attention  to  an  entirely  different  class 
of  cases.  There  are  a vast  number  of  expressions  in  the  text 
that  cause  endless  difficulty  to  the  higher  critics,  not  by  virtue 
of  any  intrinsic  quality,  but  because  of  the  frame  of  mind  in 
which  the  commentators  approach  them.  Probably  it  will  be 
best  to  illustrate  this  at  some  length  with  a very  simple  case. 
The  following  is  extracted  from  the  writer’s  “ Notes  on  He- 
brew Religion.”  “ The  Lord  ” stands  for  the  different  trans- 
literations of  the  Tetragrammaton  adopted  by  the  various 
authors  cited: 

THE  ARK  IN  NUMBERS  X 

“ I now  come  to  a group  of  questions  that  may  be  most 
suitably  discussed  in  dealing  with  a few  verses  of  Numbers. 
We  are  told  in  x.  33  that  ‘ the  Ark  of  the  covenant  sof  the 
Lord  went  before  them’  (i.e.  the  Israelites).  It  would  seem 
to  most  people  that  no  doubt  could  arise  as  to  the  meaning  of 
this  phrase,  but  such  a belief  would  only  show  ignorance  of 
the  Higher  Criticism.  Dr.  George  Buchanan  Gray,  who  has 
published  an  edition  of  Numbers,  writes  as  follows : — 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


93 


“ ‘As  here,  so  in  Josh.  iii.  3 et  seq.  (D),  the  ark  precedes 
the  Israelites,  and  acts  as  their  guide  along  an  unknown 
route;  but  there  it  is  borne  by  “the  priests,  the  Levites.” 
Here,  if  we  may  judge  from  so  fragmentary  a record,  it  is 
conceived  of  as  moving  by  itself  (cf.  1 Sam.  v.  et  seq.,  es- 
pecially v.  11;  vi.  9 et  seq.;  2 Sam.  vi.  5).  The  pillar  of 
cloud  is  certainly  thought  to  move  of  itself  (e.g.  Ex.  xiii.  21 
et  seq.)  [p.  95]. 

“ But  this  is  not  all ; Num.  x.  35,  36,  run  as  follows: 

“ ‘And  it  came  to  pass  when  the  ark  set  forward,  that 
Moses  said,  Arise,  O Lord,  and  let  thine  enemies  be  scattered, 
and  let  them  that  hate  thee  flee  before  thee.  And  when  it 
rested,  he  said,  Return,  O Lord,  to  the  myriads  of  the  thou- 
sands of  Israel.'  ” 

“ Dr.  Gray  writes  on  this : — 

“ ‘ Here,  as  in  verse  33,  the  ark  starts  of  itself,  and  the 
words  which  follow  may  be  taken  as  addressed  to  it.  The  ark 
is  the  visible  form  in  or  by  which  the  Lord  manifests  his  pres- 
ence, and  may  therefore,  like  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  be  ad- 
dressed as  the  Lord.’  ” 1 

CRITICISM  OF  DR.  GRAY'S  VIEW 

“ These  notes  inevitably  suggest  the  following  questions : 

“ 1.  If  any  reader  of  a modern  history  found  the  words 
‘ the  guns  were  ordered  to  the  front,’  would  he  judge  that  the 
guns  were  conceived  of  as  hearing,  obeying,  and  moving  by 
themselves  ? 

“ 2.  Would  he  in  such  a case  crave  in  aid  a passage  stating 
that  clouds  were  seen  to  move  across  the  heavens  ? 

\‘  3.  If  further  he  read,  ‘ when  the  guns  moved  to  the 

1 P.  96.  In  this  and  all  the  other  excerpts  from  the  higher  crit- 
ical publications  I have  substituted  “ the  Lord  ” for  their  translit- 
erations of  the  Tetragrammaton. 


94 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


front,  the  band  played  “ God  save  the  King,”  ’ would  he  infer 
that  the  guns  started  of  themselves,  and  that  they  were  ‘ the 
visible  form  in  or  by  which’  the  King  manifested  his  pres- 
ence, and  might,  therefore,  be  addressed  as  the  King? 

“ 4.  Has  Dr.  Gray  — or,  so  far  as  he  knows,  any  member 
of  his  school  — attempted  to  check  any  of  these  statements 
by  examining  the  other  passages  attributed  to  the  same 
source  in  the  light  of  these  theories?  Such  a verse  as  Deut. 
xxxi.  15  (assigned  by  Mr.  Addis  to  the  same  source,  J) 
would  appear  to  distinctly  negative  the  theory.  And  did  God 
manifest  His  presence  by  means  of  the  Ark  on  other  occa- 
sions? Did  the  Ark  wander  in  the  garden  of  Eden  or  speak 
from  Sinai?  Or  is  this  the  conception  that  pervades  the  Song 
of  Deborah,  which  Dr.  Gray  would  probably  reckon  among 
the  earliest  extant  portions  of  Hebrew  literature  ? ” 

DR.  KAUTZSCH’s  VIEW 

“ Professor  Kautzsch,  another  member  of  this  school, 
writes  as  follows : ‘ The  Lord  and  the  Ark,  that  is  to  say, 

appear  here  [i.e.  in  Num.  x.  35  et  seq.  — H.  M.  W.]  as  prac- 
tically identical.  Not  as  though  this  wooden  chest  repre- 
sented the  Lord.  But  His  presence  appeared  inseparably 
connected  with  the  Ark;  wherever  it  was  seen,  there  the 
Lord  was,  and  showed  Himself  active.’ 1 Then  he  proceeds 
to  misunderstand  a number  of  other  passages.  But  as  he 
thinks  these  verses  probably  belong  to  J,  the  question  inevit- 
ably arises  whether  he  has  troubled  to  consider  how  (if  at 
all)  the  assertion  that  God’s  * presence  appeared  inseparably 
connected  with  the  Ark  ’ can  be  brought  into  harmony  with 
the  other  passages  attributed  to  that  source.  But  perhaps  he 
would  prefer  to  revert  to  an  earlier  opinion  which  he  has 
1 Hastings’  Diet.  Bible,  Ext.  vol.  p.  628  b. 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


95 


expressed  in  another  work  — viz.,  that  these  verses  are  more 
ancient  than  the  rest  of  J.  This  view  rests  on  nothing  more 
substantial  than  the  averment  that  ‘ the  great  antiquity  of 
this  verse  is  clearly  seen  from  the  manner  in  which  the  holy 
ark  is  spoken  of  as  a pledge,  not  to  say  a representation,  of 
the  personal  presence  of  the  Lord.’  Fortunately,  there  are  a 
few  other  passages  which  Kautzsch  assigns  to  the  same 
period,  among  them  Ex.  xvii.  6 and  the  Song  of  Deborah 
(Jud.  v.  2 fif.).  Does  he  seriously  believe  that  in  either  of 
these  passages  God’s  presence  is  ‘ inseparably  ’ connected  with 
the  ark?  Is  it  of  ‘ this  wooden  chest  ’ that  he  writes  in  dealing 
with  the  Song:  ‘ In  His  awful  Majesty  He  left  Mount  Sinai, 
His  holy  dwelling  place,  to  appear  in  person  oil  the  field  of 
battle  (ver.  4 et  seq.)  and  His  curse  deservedly  falls  upon  the 
city  (ver.  23),  which  “ came  not  to  the  help  of  the  Lord 
amongst  the  mighty  ” — the  Lord  who  is  the  champion  of 
His  people’  ?•” 

DR.  KUENEN'S  VIEW 

“ Dr.  Kuenen  wrote  of  Num.  x.  35,  36,  that  in  this  passage 
it  was  ‘ as  plain  as  possible  ’ that  the  Ark  was  regarded  as 
‘ the  abode  ’ of  the  Lord.  That  was  on  p.  258  of  Vol.  I.  of 
the  English  translation  of  the  ‘ Religion  of  Israel.’  But  by 
p.  314  he  had  persuaded  himself  that  in  the  Song  of  De- 
borah — which,  as  already  stated,  is  regarded  by  the  critics 
as  one  of  the  earliest  documents  we  possess  — Seir,  the  land 
of  Edom,  had  become  His  ‘ former  and  proper  abode.’  What 
was  the  relation  of  Seir  and  the  ark?” 

MR.  ADDIS'S  VIEW 

“ But  the  matter  becomes  even  more  complicated  when  we 
come  to  Mr.  Addis.  Fie  has  yet  a third  fixed  abode  for  God. 
According  to  this  view,  He  ‘ was,  so  far  back  as  our  knowl- 


96 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


edge  goes,  the  God  of  Sinai  or  Horeb.’  Half  a dozen  pages 
later  Mr.  Addis  finds  himself  involved  in  a difficulty.  ‘ How,’ 
he  very  pertinently  asks  — ‘ how  was  a God  who  had  a fixed 
abode  on  Horeb  to  fight  for  His  people  when  they  were  at  a 
distance  ? ’ He  gives  three  answers.  He  thinks  that  God 
sometimes  ‘ left  the  mountain  and  went  in  person  to  the  help 
of  His  people:  this,  as  has  been  said,  is  the  belief  expressed 
in  Deborah’s  song.’  We  may  remark  that  the  song  deals 
with  Seir,  not  Horeb,  so  that  this  explanation  only  involves 
fresh  difficulties.  Secondly,  Mr.  Addis  says  that,  ‘ according 
to  an  old  section  in  the  Pentateuch  (Ex.  xxiii.  20),’  God  ‘ sent 
His  angel  to  lead  them  on  their  way.’  But  this,  unhappily, 
conflicts  with  the  third  explanation.  According  to  this  last 
theory,  the  Ark  ‘ secured  the  presence  ’ of  God.  ‘ There,  as 
nowhere  else,  the  Lord  was  present.’  But,  then,  what  about 
all  the  other  ‘ fixed  abodes,’  at  which,  apparently,  God  must 
have  been  less  present?  And  what  need  for  God  to  leave 
Sinai,  or  for  the  angel  of  the:  Lord  to  replace  Him,  if  in  fact 
He  was  already  present  ‘ as  nowhere  else  ’ ? ” 1 

THE  MENTAL  ATMOSPHERE  OF  THE  CRITICS 
This  case  has  been  dwelt  on  at  some  length,  in  ,order  that 
some  idea  may  be  given  of  the  mental  atmosphere  in  which 
Old  Testament  studies  are  now  enveloped.  It  is  in  no  wise 
exceptional:  on  the  contrary,  instances  can  be  given  from 
almost  any  publication  of  the  Wellhausen  school.  The  pres- 
ent writer  has  often  drawn  attention  to  such  cases  in  his  var- 
ious publications.  Here  are  a few  modern  theories : “ Rock 
of  Israel”  points. to  stone  worship!  The  Hebrew  for  Aaron 
is  Aharon,  the  Hebrew  for  Ark  is  aron : the  difference  is 
similar  to  the  difference  between  Abraham  and  Abram : there- 
fore Aaron  was  never  a real  person,  but  a mere  personification 
1 Notes  on  Hebrew  Religion,  pp.  28-31. 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


97 


of  the  Ark ! There  was  calf-worship  at  Bethel : Aaron  is 
associated  with  the  golden  calf : therefore,  the  priests  of  Bethel 
were  descended  from  Aaron  ! Mr.  Addis  writes : “ The  terror 
of  Isaac  was  a title  of  the  deity  who  dwelt  at  Mizpah,  or  per- 
haps at  Beersheba.”  Yet  he  himself  translates  Gen.  xxxi.  42 : 
“ Unless  the  God  of  my  father,  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the 
awful  God  of  Isaac,  had  been  with  me  [where?  at  Mizpah  or 
at  Beersheba?],  surely  now  thou  hadst  sent  me  away  empty. 
God  has  seen  my  affliction,  and  the  labour  of  my  hands,  and 
gave  His  decision  last  night/'  Perhaps  the  following  in- 
stance from  the  writer’s  “ Notes  on  Hebrew  Religion  ” may 
be  of  interest:  “ Mr.  Addis  puts  forward  what  are  admit- 

tedly a number  of  guesses  — and  are  properly  marked  as 
such  — as  to  the  meaning  of  the  various  mourning  customs. 
These  culminate  in  the  following:  ‘Even  the  wailing  ac- 

quires a new  import,  when  we  learn  that  the  Arabs  cried  to 
the  spirit  of  the  dead,  “ Be  not  far  off.”  ’ One  is  irresistibly 
tempted  to  ask  Mr.  Addis  whether  the  wailing  of  English 
babies  also  acquired  a new  import  for  the  author  of  this  sug- 
gestion when  he  learnt  Arabic.  If  an  English  boy  were  found 
weeping,  would  it  be  reasonable  to  infer  that  he  was  implor- 
ing some  spirit  — perhaps  the  spirit  of  the  birch  — not  to  be 
far  off?  And  would  anybody  reason  from  this  that  the  Eng- 
lish of  to-day  are  addicted  to  tree-worship?  It  all  looks  ab- 
surd enough  when  the  methods  of  the  Wellhausen  school  are 
applied  to  a civilization  we  know  intimately ; but  why  is  it  less 
absurd  when  they  choose  ancient  Israel  as  the  background  of 
their  theories  ?”  1 

DREAMS  AND  ANGELS  AS  CRITERIA  OF  “ SOURCES  ” 

It  will  be  seen  that  from  this  condition  of  affairs  it  must 
inevitably  result  that  many  arguments  should  be  put  forward 
1 Op.  cit,.,  pp.  10  f. 


98 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


in  favor  of  the  division  of  the  Pentateuch  that  would  never 
obtain  the  support  of  any  man  of  ordinary  sanity  and  judg- 
ment who  took  the  trouble  to  investigate  the  phenomena  for 
himself.  For  example,  it  is  alleged  that  E is  characterized 
by  the  occurrence  of  dreams.  Yet  in  Gen.  xv.,  verses  3 f., 
17  f.,  forming  parts  of  the  narrative  of  the  vision,  go  to  J ; in 
Gen.  xxviii.,  Jacob  goes  to  sleep  in  E and  wakes  in  J ; Pha- 
raoh’s dreams  were  common  to  both  sources ; in  xxvi.  24  Isaac 
has  a vision  in  J.  Similarly  with  angels.  These  are  also  said 
to  be  characteristic  of  E,  yet  the  angel  of  the  Lord  appears  to 
Hagar  in  J (xvi.  7 ff.),  two  angels  are  prominent  in  xix.  (J)  ; 
in  xxii.  15  ff.  the  angel  of  the  Lord  appears  to  Abraham,  and 
the  critics  get  out  of  the  difficulty  only  partially,  and  then  only 
by  calling  in  “ redactors  ” to  take  over  passages  that  would 
have  been  assigned  to  J but  for  the  existence  of  this  criterion. 

THE  DOUBLETS 

Similarly  with  the  doublets.  Llere  are  a couple  of  in- 
stances. “At  present  the  Pentateuch  contains  two  narratives 
in  which  Moses  draws  water  from  a rock,  Ex.  xvii.  and  Num. 
xx.  The  critics  hold  it  to  be  improbable  that  any  author  should 
have  told  two  such  stories  and  therefore  proceed  to  apply 
their  curious  methods.  The  result  is  startling.  In  place  of 
one  author  who  writes  two  such  narratives,  we  double  the 
number  and  get  two  (J  and  E).  ‘ J’s  traditions,’  writes  Mr. 

Carpenter,  ‘ attached  parallel  incidents  to  two  names,  Massah 
and  Meribah.  E appears  also  to  have  contained  explanations 
of  both  designations.’  In  addition,  P had  a Meribah  story. 
So  that  we  reach  the  results  that  when  the  higher  critics  de- 
sire to  divide  two  by  two,  their  arithmetical  labors  lead  them 
to  believe  that  the  quotient  is  five  — or  perhaps  six  if  P had 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


yy 

a Rephidim  story ! ” 1 Thus  do  our  literary  homoeopathists 
remedy  the  improbability  of  having  an  author,  who  could  re- 
late two  incidents  of  lack  of  water.  Similia  similihus  cur- 

ant  ur! 

The  case  is  not  dissimilar  with  regard  to  manna.  Num.  xi. 
4-6  clearly  implies  that  the  Israelites  had  been  fed  with  manna 
for  a lengthy  period.  “Accordingly  it  becomes  necessary  to 
postulate  an  earlier  reference  to  manna  in  JE  to  make  up  for 
the  loss  of  Ex.  xvi.,  most  of  which  has  gone  to  P.  If  with 
Mr.  Carpenter  Ex.  xvi.  be  given  to  E while  the  present  pas- 
sage is  assigned  to  J,  we  shall  have  at  least  four  manna  stories, 
viz.  J two  (Num.  xi.  and  its  antecedent  in  the  same  docu- 
ment) ; E one  (Ex.  xvi.  4 and  its  original  context)  ; P one 
(Ex.  xvi.,  except  ver.  4).  Moreover,  E and  P inserted  their 
manna  stories  at  precisely  the  same  point  in  the  narrative, 
and  J’s  first  manna  story,  being  long  before  Kibroth-hattaavah, 
must  also  have  come  soon  after  the  Exodus.”  2 

It  is  true  that  there  are  two  flights  of  quails ; but,  as  they 
took  place  almost  exactly  a year  apart,  and  as  the  migration 
of  the  quails  is  in  fact  annual,  there  is  no  reason  at  all  to 
doubt  the  narrative.  Other  alleged  doublets  are  examined 
in  Dr.  Orr’s  “ Problem  of  the  Old  Testament.” 

THE  CASE  OF  ARAM-NAHARAIM 

Another  example  of  the  way  in  which  difficulties  are  found 
where  none  exist  in  the  text  provided  it  be  allowed  to  speak 
for  itself,  is  afforded  by  the  following,  which  is  taken  from 
an  article  by  the  writer  in  the  Churchman  for  February,  1908. 

“ It  is,  of  course,  quite  easy  to  write  that,  * whatever  oth- 
ers may  do,  the  student  of  history  cannot  hesitate  to  accept 

1 Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism,  pp  104  f.,  slightly  modified  to 
meet  a criticism  of  Dr.  Toy’s. 

3 Op.  cit.,  p.  109. 


100 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


the  results  which  have  been  obtained  by  the  very  same  in- 
ductive methods  which  have  achieved  such  great  triumphs  in 
other  regions  of  study  ’ ; but  the  answer  is  not  far  to  seek. 
Whatever  others  may  do,  the  real  student  of  history  will  not 
accept  any  results  without  first  testing  all  things,  and  search- 
ing tests  applied  by  competent  investigators  have  a strange 
knack  of  turning  the  critical  case  inside  out.  To  take  an  illus- 
tration: A whole  group  of  difficulties  is  due  to  the  persist- 
ence of  the  higher  critics  in  locating  Aram-naharaim  and  the 
group  of  words  that  go  with  it  (Haran,  Paddan-aram,  etc.)  in 
Mesopotamia,  while  the  Bible  repeatedly  proves  that  the  ref- 
erences are  to  the  Damascus  region.  It  would  occupy  too 
much  space  to  collect  all  the  evidence;  but  here  are  some  of 
the  main  points.  Laban,  hearing  on  the  third  day  that  Jacob 
had  fled,  reached  him  in  the  mountain  of  Gilead  after  seven 
days’  journey  (Gen.  xxxi.  21-23).  Obviously  he  had  not 
come  from  Mesopotamia,  since  the  time  is  wholly  insufficient. 
This  has  been  felt  by  the  critics,  and  has  led  to  some  curious 
results.  Instead  of  saying,  ‘Are  we  right  in  identifying 
Aram-naharaim,  etc.,  with  Mesopotamia,  and  holding  that 
the  “ River  ” always  means  the  Euphrates,’  they  assume  that 
they  must  be  right  in  their  identifications,  and  that  all  diffi- 
culties resulting  therefrom  are  due  either  to  the  ignorance  of 
the  Biblical  writers  — who  are  assumed  to  have  been  quite 
unfamiliar  with  the  geography  of  their  own  times  — or  else 
to  a plurality  of  sources.  Accordingly,  on  Gen.  xxxi.  21 
(‘  and  he  rose  up,  and  passed  over  the  River  ’)  the  annotator 
in  the  Oxford  Hexateuch  writes  as  follows:  ‘As  the  distance 
from  the  Euphrates  to  Gilead  is  much  more  than  a seven 
days’  march  (23),  and  the  extant  passages  of  “E”  do  not 
assign  Laban’s  home  to  Haran,  it  is  possible  that  “ E ” placed 
it  nearer  to  Gilead,  and  that  the  clause  “ and  he  rose  up,  and 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


101 


passed  over  the  River  ” is  incorporated  by  the  compiler  from 
J (cp.  Dillmann,  who  suggests  as  an  alternative  that  “ the 
River  ” denotes  some  other  stream.  But  this  is  less  probable 
than  that  the  narrator  underestimated  the  required  time)/” 

LABAN'S  HOME  IN  SYRIA 

“If  the  evidence  be  collated  it  becomes  apparent  that  in 
‘ E ’ Laban’s  home  is  near  by,  for  the  erection  of  heap  and 
pillar  in  the  mountain  (51-54)  as  a boundary  could  have  no 
meaning  if  Laban  came  from  Mesopotamia,  nor  is  it  clear  — 
unless  on  the  lucus  a non  lucendo  principle  — why  ‘ E ’ should 
call  Laban  ‘the  Syrian  ’ (20,  24)  if  he  came  from  Mesopota- 
mia. But  it  is  interesting  to  notice  the  thoroughly  character- 
istic method  of  dealing  with  the  matter.  It  is  ‘ less  probable  ’ 
that  the  narrator  knew  what  he  was  talking  about  than  that 
he  wrote  what  was  geographically  absurd,  and  it  is  ‘ possible  ’ 
that  the  reference  to  the  River  was  incorporated  by  the  com- 
piler from  ‘ J.’  Unfortunately,  ‘ J ’ also  knows  the  story  of 
the  heap  erected  at  Gilead,  so  that  he  cannot  have  been  think- 
ing of  Mesopotamia  either.  Moreover,  he  locates  Laban’s 
home  in  Aram-naharaim  (Gen.  xxiv.),  and  the  passages  we 
have  yet  to  consider  help  us  further.” 

Balaam’s  home 

“ The  next  difficulty  is  more  serious.  Balaam  is  lodged  by 
Deuteronomy  in  Aram-naharaim  (xxiii.  4 (5)),  and  by  Num- 
bers (xxiii.  7)  in  Aram,  which  normally  means  Syria.  This 
gives  us  the  equation  Aram-naharaim  = Aram  = Syria,  and 
greatly  relieves  the  chronology  of  the  concluding  chapters  of 
Numbers,  which  on  the  higher  critical  hypothesis  is  impossi- 
ble. Dr.  G.  B.  Gray  actually  goes  the  length  of  writing,  ‘A 
journey  to  Aram-naharaim,  related  elsewhere,  was  undertaken 
with  camels  (Gen.  xxiv.  10)  ; the  ass  of  Num.  xxii.,  verses  22- 


102 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


34,  belongs  to  a story  which  locates  Balaam’s  home  much  nearer 
Moab.’  But  surely,  then,  even  the  ass  testifies  to  the  error  of 
identifying  the  Aram  of  Num.  xxiii.  7 and  the  Aram-naharaim 
of  Deuteronomy  and  Genesis  with  Mesopotamia.  There  is 
no  difficulty  in  explaining  the  use  of  the  camels  in  the  circum- 
stances narrated  by  Genesis,  if  Aram-naharaim  means  the 
Damascus  region,  but  the  Mesopotamian  theory  is  in  conflict 
alike  with  the  ass,  the  chronological  data,  the  statements  of 
Genesis  as  to  Laban,  and  the  ordinary  meaning  of  Aram. 
But  even  that  is  not  all ; yet  another  of  the  Biblical  writers 
insists  on  identifying  Aram-naharaim  with  the  Damascus 
district.  The  title  to  Ps.  lx.  referring  to  the  narration  of 
2 Sam.  viii.  speaks  of  Aram-naharaim  and  Aram-zobah.  This 
corresponds  to  Zohah  and  Damascus  in  the  text  of  Samuel.”  1 

ANOTHER  INSTANCE 

Other  criteria  for  the  dissection  of  the  Pentateuch  are  pro- 
vided by  the  division  itself.  A curious  instance  is  afforded 
by  the  higher  critical  allegation  that  one  narrative  places  the 
Israelites  apart  in  Goshen  while  two  others  know  nothing  of 
Goshen  and  locate  them  among  the  Egyptians.  Any  reader 
who  wishes  to  test  the  critics  for  himself  may  be  recom- 
mended to  read  the  passages  that  deal  with  the  Israelites  un- 
der Pharaoh  and  see  what  sort  of  a division  he  can  make  on 
this  basis.  When  he  has  done  his  best,  he  can  then  see  the 
arguments  for  and  against  this  dissection  set  out  in  the 
writer’s  “ Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.”  He  will  be  able 
to  judge  of  the  merits  of  the  higher  criticism  none  the  worse 
for  having  tried  it  in  this  way  for  himself  without  being  told 
first  either  how  the  division  is  effected  or  how  it  is  disproved. 

1The  Churchman,  February,  1908,  pp.  90-92. 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


103 


SYMPATHY  WITH  EASTERN  IDEAS  NECESSARY 
An  inherent  lack  of  sympathy  with  Eastern  methods  of 
thought  and  expression  is  another  great  cause  of  error.  The 
following  extracts  from  an  article  entitled  “ Deuteronomy  in 
Eastern  Light,”  from  the  pen  of  Dr.  G.  E.  White,  a resident 
in  Asia  Minor,  may  be  of  interest  in  this  connection.  The 
article  was  published  in  the  Churchman  for  November,  1909. 

“ The  standpoint  of  Deuteronomy  is  Oriental ; the  stand- 
point of  Professor  Driver  seems  to  be  Occidental.  The  two 
angles  of  vision  are  not  greatly  apart,  but,  if  I am  not  mis- 
taken, there  is  some  real  difference.  . . . Professor  Driver 
mentions  it  as  a variation  not  favorable  to  Moses’  author- 
ship that  ‘ in  i.  9-13  the  plan  of  appointing  judges  to  assist 
Moses  is  represented  as  originating  with  Moses  himself,’ 
whereas  ‘ in  Ex.  xviii.  13-26  the  plan  is  referred  entirely  to 
the  advice  of  Jethro.’  I cannot  tell  what  use  of  language  is 
allowed  or  disallowed  in  England  in  such  a case,  but  I know 
that  in  Turkey  the  same  act  or  idea  may  be  attributed,  for 
example,  to  the  King,  a Councillor  of  State,  a Viceroy,  or 
even  a local  Governor,  according  to  the  connection  and  with 
no  thought  of  a contradiction.”  1 

Similarly,  when  Dr.  Driver  finds  a discrepancy  between 
Deut.  i.  22  f.  and  Num.  xiii.  1-3,  because  in  the  one  passage 
the  mission  of  the  spies  is  referred  to  a suggestion  of  the 
people  and  in  the  other  to  a command  of  God,  Dr.  White 
makes  the  following  convincing  reply : “ This  is  still  a com- 

mon mode  of  speech  in  the  East.  To  illustrate,  the  constitu- 
tional regime  proclaimed  in  July,  1908,  has  been  referred  in 
common  speech  about  equally  to  Allah  and  to  the  Young 
Turks,  and  no  one  supposes  that,  in  recognising  the  agency 
xThe  Churchman,  November,  1909,  p.  826. 


104 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


of  the  one  even  in  an  exclusive  form  of  words,  he  is  debarred 
from  recognising  the  other/’  One  more  quotation  from  this 
article : “ In  reviewing  a series  of  events,  in  describing  a 

complicated  process  or  a scene  with  several  actors,  they  fre- 
quently disregard  the  strict  sequence  of  events,  and  group 
their  actors  somewhat  like  the  figures  in  a picture  deficient  in 
perspective.  This  is  unsatisfactory  to  the  Occidental  sense 
of  order  and  proportion;  but  if  one  is  to  understand  Oriental 
utterance  to  the  full,  he  must  strive  to  put  himself  en  rapport 
with  the  speaker.  He  is  not  justified  in  demanding  from  his 
Eastern  friend  what  the  latter  never  professed  to  give.”  1 

IGNORANCE  OF  HUMAN  NATURE 

This  ignorance  of  Eastern  methods  of  thought  is  often  re- 
inforced by  a most  exhaustive  ignorance  of  human  nature, 
which  causes  the  critics  to  find  difficulties  where  none  exist. 
Dr.  Driver,  for  example,  believes  that  Deuteronomy  must 
have  known  a different  account  from  Numbers  of  the  reason 
for  Moses  being  excluded  from  the  promised  land,  on  the 
ground  that,  in  Deut.  i.  37,  38 ; the  ground  of  the  prohibition 
was  God’s  anger  with  him  on  account  of  the  people.  A very 
little  acquaintance  with  human  nature  would  have  saved  him 
from  this  trap. 

ANOTHER  SUBJECTIVE  CAUSE 

In  his  “ Problem  of  the  Old  Testament,”  Dr.  Orr  has  col- 
lected a very  large  number  of  examples  of  subjective  criti- 
cism. This  book  has  (at  any  rate  in  England)  been  issued  at 
a price  that  puts  it  within  the  reach  of  all,  and  it  is  not  the 
present  writer’s  desire  to  duplicate  Dr.  Orr’s  arguments  un- 
necessarily. A single  example  may,  however,  be  quoted : “As 
little  are  we  disposed  to  trust  the  critic’s  ‘ feeling  ’ for  an 


1 Ibid.,  p.  827. 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


105 


‘ Ephraimitic  tinge  ' in  E,  when  we  find,  e.g.,  one  authority 
on  this  ‘tinge’  (Kautzsch)  declaring  that  ‘it  [E]  no  longer 
conveys  the  impression  of  a triumphant  outlook  on  a glorious 
future,  but  rather  that  of  a retrospect  on  a bygone  history,  in 
which  were  many  gloomy  experiences;’  and  another  (Kittel) 
assuring  us  that  ‘ the  whole  tone  of  E bears  witness  to  a cer- 
tain satisfaction  of  the  national  consciousness,  and  joy  over 
what  has  been  won.’  ” 1 

WHAT  THE  CRITICS  BELIEVE 

And  now  that  we  have  examined  the  main  classes  of  argu- 
ment adopted  by  the  higher  critics  in  support  of  the  analysis, 
it  may  be  well  to  take  some  instances  of  what  they  believe  on 
the  strength  of  such  reasoning.  We  have  already  had  some 
examples  — and  those  not  the  least  striking  — in  our  consid- 
eration of  the  appellations  of  God.  Those  now  to  be  given 
are  selected  for  their  shortness,  and  in  each  case  the  division 
is  that  adopted  in  the  Oxford  Hexateuch.  In  Gen.  x.,  lb 
(“And  unto  them  were  sons  born  after  the  flood”)  is 
wrenched  from  the  context  (P),  and  given  to  J;  verses  20, 
22,  and  23  are  taken  from  J — to  whom  the  context  belongs 
— for  the  enrichment  of  P.  In  Gen.  xii.,  verse  9 “ may  be 
due  to  the  compiler  who  has  attached  the  Egyptian  episode 
10-20  by  its  means.”  In  xiii.,  verse  1 “may  be  really”  the 
harmonist’s ; verse  2 belongs  to  J ; verses  3 and  4 constitute 
“ the  editorial  connexion  of  xii.  10-xiii.  1 with  the  account  of 
Lot’s  choice  ” ; verse  5 goes  to  J ; of  verse  6a,  we  read  “ P 
summarizes  the  incident,  in  his  usual  method  in  cases  which 
he  does  not  select  for  expansion.”  Then  the  narrative  returns 
to  J.  If  we  ask  where  there  is  any  proof  of  all  this,  none  is 
offered  to  us.  The  documentary  theory  is  not  so  much  the 
1 Problem  of  the  Old  Testament,  pp.  210  f. 


106 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


result  of  the  difficulties  of  the  Massoretic  text,  as  of  the  men- 
tality of  the  critics.  There  is  a phase  of  mind  to  which  any- 
thing, however  preposterous,  becomes  credible,  and  it  is  this 
condition  which  is  responsible  for  the  Higher  Criticism  in  the 
form  in  which  we  know  it  to-day. 

CRITICAL  DISAGREEMENT 

It  should  be  added  that  the  higher  critical  frame  of  mind 
leads  to  different  results  in  different  individuals.  The  critics 
never  have  agreed  among  themselves,  and  are  never  likely  to. 
Recently,  in  the  year  1908,  Professor  Eerdmans,  Kuenen’s 
successor  in  the  University  of  Leyden,  published  the  first  two 
volumes  of  a series  in  which  he  renounces  his  allegiance  to 
Astruc,  Graf,  Kuenen,  and  Wellhausen,  and  puts  forward  a 
fresh  higher  critical  theory  of  his  own.  They  have  been  fol- 
lowed by  a third  on  the  same  lines.  Notices  of  these  volumes 
will  be  found  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  October,  1909,  and 
July,  1910.  Here  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  they  mark  an  ab- 
solute break  with  most  of  what  has  hitherto  been  esteemed  as 
the  highest  wisdom  in  higher  critical  circles,  and  are  more 
interesting  on  that  account  than  for  any  intrinsic  merit. 

Those  who  may  desire  to  go  further  into  the  higher  critical 
analysis  and  the  reasons  for  it  will  find  the  necessary  mate- 
rials in  the  publications  of  Professors  Orr  and  Green  and  of 
the  present  writer.  It  is  necessary  now  to  say  a few  words 
about  another  portion  of  the  higher  critical  case  — the  dating. 


THE  SIGNS  OF  POST-MOSAIC  DATE 


The  passages  alleged  to  prove  post-Mosaic  date  are  not  the 
part  of  the  higher  critical  case  on  which  the  critics  themselves 
place  most  reliance.  Thus  Dr.  Driver,  in  his  book  on  Gene- 
sis, after  pointing  to  the  texts  that  he  regards  as  post-Mosaic, 
writes : “ But  these  are  isolated  passages,  the  inferences  nat- 
urally authorized  by  which  might  not  impossibly  be  neutral- 
ized by  the  supposition  that  they  were  later  additions  to  the 
original  narrative,  and  did  not  consequently  determine  by 
themselves  the  date  of  the  book  as  a whole.  The  question  of 
the  date  of  the  Book  of  Genesis  is  really  part  of  a wider  ques- 
tion, viz.  that  of  the  date  of  the  Pentateuch,  — or  rather  Hex- 
ateuch,  — as  a whole.  ...  It  must  suffice  . . . . here  to  say 
generally,  that  when  the  different  parts  of  the  Hexateuch, 
especially  the  Laws,  are  compared  together,  and  also  com- 
pared with  the  other  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  the  prophets,  it  appears  clearly  that  they  cannot  all  be  the 
work  of  a single  man,  or  the  product  of  a single  age : the  dif- 
ferent strata  of  narrative  and  law  into  which,  when  closely 
examined,  the  Hexateuch  is  seen  to  fall,  reveal  differences  of 
such  a kind  that  they  can  only  be  adequately  accounted  for 
by  the  supposition  that  they  reflect  the  ideas  and  embody  the 
institutions,  which  were  characteristic  of  widely  different 
periods  of  Israelitish  history.”  1 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  Dr.  Driver  relies  primarily  on  the 
arguments  that  we  have  already  refuted  and  admits  that  little 
irrhe  Book  of  Genesis,  pp.  xv-xvi. 


108 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


weight  should  be  attached  to  the  post-Mosaica.  In  point  of 
fact  these  mostly  break  down  under  examination.  The  most 
interesting  is  Gen.  xxii.,  which,  in  the  form  known  to  the  Mas- 
soretic  Text,  appears  to  refer  to  the  Temple  Hill  — Mount 
Moriah  — as  the  Mount  of  the  Lord.  But,  as  already  pointed 
out,1  there  is  an  alternative  vocalization  of  the  Hebrew  text 
of  verse  14  followed  by  the  LXX  according  to  . which  the 
proverb  ran,  “ In  the  Mount  the  Lord  was  seen.”  The 
thought  that  God  manifested  his  power  especially  in  moun- 
tains would  then  be  parallel  to  the  view  , of  the  Syrians  in 
1 Kings  xx.  23,  28,  who  alleged  that  He  was  a God  of  the 
mountains.  There  may  well  have  been  a proverb  to  that 
effect,  and  it  is  easy  to  understand  that  the  Hebrew  was 
wrongly  read  at  a later  date  by  men  who  thought  the  orig- 
inal reading  of  the  expression  anthropomorphic  and  therefore 
preferred  the  alternative.  As  to  “ the  land  of  Moriah  ” in 
verse  2,  the  Versions  are  all  at  variance.  The  most  probable 
reading  is  that  of  the  Syriac  which  has  “land  of  the  Amor- 
ite.”  This  shows  how  easily  post-Mosaic  touches  could  be 
introduced  into  the  early  narrative  by  the  causes  that  operate 
on  every  MS.  text.  An  examination  of  the  other  post- 
Mosaica  of  Genesis  will  be  found  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra 
for  January,  1911.  A number  of  other  post-Mosaica  are  con- 
sidered in  “Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism  ” (pp.  171  ff.) 
and  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  April,  1910,  and  it  is  hoped  to 
deal  with  yet  others  in  future  issues  of  the  same  Review. 
Speaking  generally,  it  may  be  said  that  the  broad  result  of 
a candid  and  critical  examination  of  such  phenomena  is  . to 
show  that  in  the  course  of  centuries  the  Hebrew  text  has 
undergone  some  slight  corruptions  and  has  also  been  en- 
riched with  various  notes  by  subsequent  commentators. 

1 Supra , p.  19. 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


109 


These  notes  often  contain  information  that  is  valuable  in  it- 
self and  do  not  affect  the  question  of  the  authorship  of  the 
main  body  of  the  narrative.  In  most  cases  the  higher  critics 
have  themselves  recognized  that  they  are  not  integral  por- 
tions of  the  original  documents,  and  do  not  assign  them  to 
J or  E or  D or  P,  but  regard  them  as  what  they  are  — 
glosses.  Hence  they  are  of  little  importance  for  our  present 
purpose. 


VII 


THE  MORAL  AND  PSYCHOLOGICAL  ISSUES 

Before  leaving  the  higher  critical  case  for  the  construct- 
ive proof  of  the  conservative  position,  we  must  glance  at 
certain  extraordinary  features  of  the  theory  taken  as  a whole. 

THE  LEGISLATION  PROFESSEDLY  MOSAIC 

In  the  first  place,  the  whole  mass  of  the  Pentateuchal 
legislation  undoubtedly  professes  to  be  Mosaic.  How  do  the 
critics  meet  this?  They  allege  that  there  was  a custom  in 
Israel  of  attributing  all  laws  to  Moses,  they  cite  Hindu  par- 
allels, they  say  that  “ and  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses  ” means 
nothing  more  than  “ Be  it  enacted  that.”  Let  us  consider 
these  allegations  in  detail.  It  (is  absolutely  untrue  that  such 
a custom  existed  in  Israel.  When  Ezekiel  puts  forward  his 
legislation  he  does  so  in  his  own  name.  He  makes  no  pretense 
that  it  was  Mosaic.  When  Samuel  institutes  a law  of  the 
kingdom,  or  David  introduces  a rule  as  to  the  distribution 
of  booty,  they  act  in  their  own  names.  The  Chronicler  re- 
peatedly ascribes  various  institutions  to  David.  Nowhere  is 
there  a trace  of  the  alleged  custom.  The  Hindus,  again,  are 
noted  as  literary  forgers,  and  it  will  be  time  enough  to  con- 
sider their  practice  when  they  produce  an  ethical  religion  that 
is  comparable  to  that  of  the  Old  Testament.  As  to  the  the- 
ory that  the  evidence  of  the  legislation  can  be  disposed  of 
by  a statement  that  “ and  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses  ” are 
merely  enacting  words,  the  whole  texture  of  the  laws  con- 
tradicts this  hypothesis.  Open  them  at  random  anywhere, 
and  you  will  find  innumerable  phrases  that  point  to  the  Mo- 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


111 


saic  age  and  no  other: — “Tent  of  Meeting,' ” “Wilderness,” 
“ Camp,”  “ When  ye  pass  over  Jordan  into  the  land  of  Ca- 
naan,” etc.  There  is,  therefore,  no  doubt  as  to  what  the  laws 
profess  to  be. 

THE  DECALOGUE  AND  DEUTERONOMY 

This,  then,  opens  up  a number  of  inquiries.  The  moral 
question  cannot  be  evaded.  What  is  the  . position  of  a man 
who  alleges  that  God  spoke  certain  words  at  Sinai  if  he  in 
fact  knows  that  he  has  himself  composed  the  alleged  utter- 
ance? And  what  shall  we  say  of  the  huge  psychological 
improbability  that  a person  who  was  capable  of  acting  in 
such  a way  should  produce  a Decalogue  of  such  lofty  spir- 
itual and  ethical  content?  Nemo  repentc  fit  turpissimus, 
says  the  old  maxim  of  the  law  of  evidence,  and  it  is  nothing- 
short  of  an  impossiblity  that  the  Decalogue , should  proceed 
from  a literary  forger.  And  what  about  the  people  to  whom 
he  published  this  novel  statement?  Is  it  really  credible  that 
they  should  accept  it  without  demur?  Would  nobody  be 
found  to  wonder  that  this  was  the  first  that  had  been  heard 
about  so  unparalleled  an  occurrence?  Is  it  conceivable  that 
such  a narrative  as  that  of  the  event  at  Sinai  could  be  made 
part  of  a nation’s  consciousness  by  a few  strokes  of  a forger’s 
pen?  The  case  is  no  better  with  Deuteronomy.  In  the  days 
of  Josiah  there  were  prophets  living  — men  like  Jeremiah 
who  thundered  against  those  who  prophesied  falsely  in  the 
Name  of  the  Lord.  Can  it  really  be  suggested  that  in  that 
epoch  nobody  was  capable  of  discriminating  between  truth 
and  falsehood,  or  that  nobody  knew  better? 

THE  PRIESTLY  CODE 

If  anything,  the  case  is  a little  stronger  with  the  Priestly 
Code.  It  must  be  remembered  that  in  the  critical  theory 


112 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


many  of  its  institutions  had  never  existed  at  all  in  history, 
but  were  mere  exilic  inventions.  What  can  be  said  of  the 
ethics  of  those  who  forged  it  or  of  the  intelligence  of  those 
who  accepted  it?  Can  it  be  believed,  for  example,  that  when 
for  the  first  time  a law  was  read  assigning  to  the  Levites 
forty-eight  cities  from  the  Mosaic  period  onwards,  nobody, 
whether  Levite  or  common  Israelite,  wondered  that  this  was 
the  first  that  had  been  heard  of  the  matter?  It  matters  not 
which  way  we  turn : the  theory  is  loaded  with  historical  and 
psychological  incredibilities  of  the  first  order.  It  reeks  of 
the  lamp.  In  real  life  such  things  do  not  happen. 

VIII 

THE  THEORY  OF  A HEXATEUCH 

It  is  perhaps  desirable  to  deal  very  shortly  with  the  theory 
that  we  should  speak  of  a Hexateuch,  not  a Pentateuch. 
The  Hebrew  Canon  puts  the  Law  in  a separate  category 
from  any  other  book.  The  Samaritans  adopted  the  Law 
alone  as  canonical,  not  the  book  of  Joshua.  The  two  works 
present  different  orthographical  peculiarities  that  are  most 
unfavorable  to  unity  of  origin.  The  critics  themselves  cannot 
agree  whether  all  the  Pentateuchal  sources  are  to  be  found 
in  the  book  of  Joshua  or  not,  and  are  widely  at  variance  with 
one  another  as  to  the  analysis.  In  any  case  they  are  com- 
pelled to  say  that  if  these  sources  are  all  present,  their  rela- 
tive positions  are  entirely  changed  — P no  longer  supplying 
the  framework  — and  they  are  quite  differently  worked  up. 
To  all  this  must  be  added  the  evidence  as  to  the  date  and 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  that  will  be  considered  later. 
In  the  circumstances  the  Hexateuch  theory  need  not  detain  us. 


IX 


THE  CONSTRUCTIVE  CASE  FOR  UNITY 

To  a great  extent  the  unity  of  the  Pentateuch  is  best  proved 
by  the  failure  and  the  defeat  of  all  the  attempts  at  dismem- 
berment. For  a century  and  a half  the  higher  critics  have 
labored  to  divide  the  book  into  its  constituent  documents. 
What  is  the  result?  An  analysis  that  has  been  abandoned 
by  the  most  recent  of  the  higher  critical  inquirers,  that  fails 
to  explain  the  phenomena,  that  undergoes  perpetual  modifi- 
cations at  the  hands  of  its  supporters,  that  nobody  dare  de- 
fend when  it  is  challenged  in  its  most  vital  portions.  There 
are  chapters  on  which  even  the  members  of  the  dominant 
school  have  never  been  able  to  agree,  such  as  Num.  xxxii. 
There  has  been  a perpetual  tendency  to  resolve  the  docu- 
ments into  smaller  fragments  — J,  E,  etc.,  being  converted  into 
the  work  of  schools  J1?  J2,  etc.,  and  Ex,  E2,  etc.  This  ten- 
dency is  virtually  a confession  of  the  failure  of  the  analytic 
method  to  solve  the  difficulties.  There  has  been  no  attempt 
to  meet  the  present  writer’s  repeated  challenges  even  on  such 
all-important  issues  as  the  validity  of  Astruc’s  clue,  which 
has  guided  the  work  of  the  higher  critics  for  a century  and 
a half,  or  Wellhausen’s  inability  to  distinguish  between  a 
mound  and  a house,  which  is  mainly  responsible  for  the  cur- 
rent historical  reconstructions.  Archaeologists,  and  those  who 
have  been  influenced  by  archaeological  results,  have  aban- 
doned the  theory  in  increasing  numbers.  These  and  similar 
facts  supply  the  best  argument  for  the  unity  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. 


114 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


SIGNS  OF  UNITY 

It  must  not,  however,  be  supposed  that  there  are  no  other 
arguments  available.  On  the  contrary,  it  constantly  happens 
that  evidence  of  one  sort  or  another  exists  to  prove  the  unity 
of  what  the  critics  sunder.  At  the  same  time  much  of  this 
evidence  is  evaded  by  various  hypotheses.  For  example, 
seventy  is  a sacred  number,  and  it  appears  that  the  original 
text  of  Gen.  x.  contained  seventy  names,  though  the  Hebrew 
now  presents  rather  more.  Such  a fact  is  obviously  due  to 
design;  but  whose  design?  The  critics  attribute  it  to  the  re- 
dactor. Similarly  with  the  systematic  framework  of  the  book 
of  Genesis.  That  is  given  to  P,  and  it  is  then  stated  that  the 
redactor  took  this  as  his  basis  and  fitted  into  it  excerpts  from 
JE.  It  is  the  same  in  all  cases  where  various  documents 
dovetail  in  such  a way  as  to  make  a single  narrative.  Instead 
of  saying  “ Here  is  a natural  and  intelligible  account  which  is 
obviously  a unity,”  the  critics  often  divide  it  between  two 
sources,  alleging  that  the  missing  parts  of  one  contained  just 
the  same  information  as  is  to  be  found  in  the  extant  parts  of 
the  other.  However  improbable  this  may  appear,  it  is  not 
as  a rule  possible  to  produce  any  reason  that  will  convince 
the  critics.  Yet  any  impartial  person  will  feel  no  doubt  when 
he  examines  the  analysis. 

GENESIS  XXIX.- XXXIII. 

To  show  this,  the  portions  of  Gen.  xxix.-xxxiii.  that  are 
assigned  to  P are  here  transcribed  in  full  consecutively: — 
Gen.  xxix.  24.  '‘And  Laban  gave  Zilpah  his  handmaid 
unto  his  daughter  Leah  for  an  handmaid.” 

Gen.  xxix.  28b.  “And  he  gave  him  Rachel  his  daughter 
to  wife.”  Ver.  29.  “And  Laban  gave  to  Rachel  his  daughter 
Bilhah  his  handmaid  to  be  her  handmaid.” 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


1 1 5 


Gen.  xxx.  21.  “And  afterwards  she  bare  a daughter,  and 
called  her  name  Dinah  [this  is  thought  by  some  to  belong  to 
one  of  the  latest  editors].”  Ver.  22a.  “And  God  remem- 
bered Rachel.” 

Gen.  xxxi.  18b.  “And  all  his  substance  which  he  had 
gathered,  the  cattle  of  his  getting,  which  he  had  gathered  in 
Paddan-aram,  for  to  go  to  Isaac  his  father  unto  the  land  of 

Canaan.” 

Gen.  xxxiii.  18b.  “ ....  to  the  city  of  Shechem,  which  is 
in  the  land  of  Canaan,  when  he  came  from  Paddan-aram.” 

That  is  P’s  extant  narrative  for  these  chapters.  Incident- 
ally it  shows  how  untrue  is  the  statement  that  P forms  a 
nearly  complete  whole.  It  must  have  recounted  the  mar- 
riage with  Leah ; otherwise  the  notice  of  the  gift  of  Zilpah 
would  have  been  unintelligible.  As  it  tells  us  that  God  re- 
membered Rachel,  perhaps  also  of  the  birth  of  Dinah  — it 
must  have  recounted  the  birth  of  Jacob’s  sons.  That  is  to 
say,  it  must  have  had  the  substance  of  the  JE  portions  of 
chapters  xxix.  and  xxx.  But,  further,  JE  has  the  narra- 
tives of  the  birth  of  the  sons  which  involves  the  gift  of  Zilpah 
and  Bilhah,  and  subsequently  speaks  of  Dinah,  so  that  it  must 
have  narrated  her  birth  too.  Thus,  by  a marvelous  coinci- 
dence, the  missing  parts  of  JE  contained  precisely  the  infor- 
mation that  is  contained  in  the  extant  portions  of  P.  Simi- 
lar considerations  apply  in  the  other  chapters.  Why  were 
the  missing  portions  of  JE  cut  out  and  replaced  by  these 
fragments  of  P ? What  conceivable  motive  could  the  re- 
dactor have  had  for  his  conduct?  Is  the  theory  credible? 

NUMBERS  XVI. 

But  it  is  possible  occasionally  to  go  even  further  in  show- 
ing the  unity  of  the  narrative.  Thus  there  may  be  literary 
marks.  For  instance,  in  angry  dialogues  the  speakers  are 


116 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


apt  to  catch  up  one  another’s  phrases  and  hurl  them  back, 
and  great  authors  often  adopt  this  device  to  mark  rising 
anger.  An  instance  — obscured  in  the  English  Versions  — 
occurs  in  Num.  xvi.  The  rebels  say,  “ Ye  take  too  much 
upon  you,”  verse  3 (P).  This  is  caught  up  by  Moses  in 
verse  7 (P).  Then,  in  turn  Moses  uses  the  phrase  “ Is  it  a 
small  thing,”  verse  9 (a  late  stratum  of  P),  and  this  is  caught 
up  in  13  (J).  Here  the  marks  of  literary  unity  could  not  es- 
cape any  true  literary  critic,  and  amply  prove  the  impossibility 
of  the  analysis. 

THE  CHARACTERS  UNITARY 

A further  and  a very  important  mark  of  unity  is  to  be 
found  in  the  presentation  of  the  various  personages.  Abra- 
ham, Jacob,  Laban,  Joseph,  Moses,  Aaron,  to  a lesser  extent 
Isaac,  have  well-marked  characters,  and  the  pictures  are  not 
composite  but  unitary.  It  cannot  be  seriously  suggested,  for 
instance,  that  Abraham  or  Laban  has  one  set  of  traits  in  J 
and  another  in  E.  The  delineations  are  always  the  same: 
and  the  result  is  that  every  Bible  reader  is  familiar  with  par- 
ticular characters,  and  never  dreams  that  he  is  confronted 
with  two  or  more  conflicting  documents  in  each  of  these 
cases.  In  this  respect  all  the  “ sources  ” show  exactly  the 
same  pattern  — so  completely  that  nobody  ever  conceives 
that  there  could  be  different  designs  in  what  is  so  palpably 
an  integral  whole.  Who  has  heard  of  two  Jacobs  or  two 
Josephs?  Why,  even  the  higher  critics  themselves  write 
sketches  of  their  characters  without  suggesting  that  there  is 
any  traceable  discrepancy! 


X 


THE  EVIDENCE  FOR  MOSAIC  DATE 
Internal  Evidence 

The  four  concluding  books  of  the  Pentateuch  contain  in- 
numerable proofs  of  the  date  at  which  they  were  composed. 
In  the  first  instance,  something  may  perhaps  be  said  of  the 
historical  situation  revealed  by  a study  of  the  books.  Thus 
the  late  Professor  W.  H.  Green  wrote  as  follows  of  Deuter- 
onomy : — 

PROFESSOR  GREEN  ON  DEUTERONOMY 

“ Laws  are  never  issued  to  regulate  a state  of  things 
which  has  passed  away  ages  before,  and  can  by  no  possibility 
be  revived.  What  are  we  to  think,  then,  of  a hypothesis 
which  assigns  the  code  of  Deuteronomy  to  the  reign  of  Jo- 
siah,  or  shortly  before  it,  when  its  injunction  to  exterminate 
the  Canaanites  (xx.  16-18)  and  the  Amalekites  (xxv.  17-19), 
who  had  long  since  disappeared,  would  be  as  utterly  out  of 
date  as  a law  in  New  Jersey  at  the  present  time  offering  a 
bounty  for  killing  wolves  and  bears,  or  a royal  proclamation 
in  Great  Britain  ordering  the  expulsion  of  the  Danes?  A 
law  contemplating  foreign  conquests  (xx.  10-15)  would 
have  been  absurd  when  the  urgent  question  was  whether 
Judah  could  maintain  its  own  existence  against  the  encroach- 
ments of  Babylon  and  Egypt.  A law  discriminating  against 
Ammon  and  Moab  (xxiii.  3,  4),  in  favor  of  Edom  (vers.  7, 
8),  had  its  warrant  in  the  Mosaic  period,  but  not  in  the  time 
of  the  later  kings.  Jeremiah  discriminates  precisely  the  other 
way,  promising  a future  restoration  to  Moab  (xlviii.  47)  and 


118 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


Ammon  (xlix.  6),  which  he  denies  to  Edom  (xlix.  17,  18), 
who  is  also  to  Joel  (iii.  19),  Obadiah,  and  Isaiah  (Ixiii.  1-6), 
the  representative  foe  of  the  people  of  God.  . . . The  allus- 
ions to  Egypt  imply  familiarity  with  and  recent  residence  in 
that  land.  . . . And  how  can  a code  belong  to  the  time  of  Jo- 
siah,  which,  while  it  contemplates  the  possible  selection  of  a 
king  in  the  future  (Deut.  xvii.  14  if.),  nowhere  implies  an 
actual  regal  government,  but  vests  the  supreme  central  au- 
thority in  a judge  and  the  priesthood  (xvii.  8-12;  xix.  17); 
which  lays  special  stress  on  the  requirements  that  the  king 
must  be  a native  and  not  a foreigner  (xvii.  15),  when  the 
undisputed  line  of  succession  had  for  ages  been  fixed  in  the 
family  of  David,  and  that  he  must  not  ‘ cause  the  people  to 
return  to  Egypt’  (ver.  16),  as  they  seemed  ready  to  do  on 
every  grievance  in  the  days  of  Moses  (Num.  xiv.  4),  but 
which  no  one  ever  dreamed  of  doing  after  they  were  fairly 
established  in  Canaan  ? ” 1 

These  are  weighty  arguments  — how  weighty  we  may  see 
by  examining  one  of  the  allusions  in  detail.  Take  such  a 
verse  as  Deut.  xi.  10 : “ For  the  land,  whither  thou  goest  in  to 
possess  it,  is  not  as  the  land  of  Egypt,  from  whence  ye  came 
out,  where  thou  sowedst  thy  seed,  and  wateredst  it  with  thy 
foot,  as  a garden  of  herbs.”  What  possible  meaning  or  ap- 
propriateness could  such  a verse  have  for  the  contempor- 
aries of  King  Josiah?  Such  little  touches  are  all  the  more 
convincing  for  their  purely  incidental  and  undesigned  char- 
acter. That  is  not  the  language  of  a forger  living  centuries 
after  the  conquest. 

THE  HISTORICAL  SITUATION  REQUIRED  BY  P 

If  now  we  turn  to  the  Priestly  Code  to  examine  its  histor- 
ical situation,  we  shall  reach  precisely  the  same  result.  It 
1 Moses  and  the  Prophets,  pp.  63-64. 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


119 


has  already  been  shown  that,  on  the  face  of  it,  the  Code  re- 
fers to  wilderness  conditions;  but  the  critics  seek  to  neu- 
tralize that  by  suggesting  that  this  is  an  assumed  dress.  If 
that  were  so,  then  we  should  find  the  conditions  of  the  ex- 
ilic or  post-exilic  period  underlying  the  laws.  What  is,  in 
fact,  the  historical  situation  postulated? 

THE  CONCENTRATION  OF  THE  PEOPLE 

The  Israelites  are  represented  as  being  so  closely  concen- 
trated that  they  will  always  be  able  to  keep  the  three  pil- 
grimage festivals.  One  exception  only  is  contemplated,  and 
that  is  singularly  instructive : “ If  any  man  of  you  or  of  your 
generations  shall  be  unclean  by  reason  of  a dead  body,  or  be 
in  a journey  afar  off,  yet  he  shall  keep  the  passover  unto  the 
Lord  : in  the  second  month  on  the  fourteenth  day  at  even  they 
shall  keep  it”  (Num.  ix.  10  f.).  That  is  the  one  and  only 
passage  in  which  attention  is  given  to  the  possibility  that  the 
Israelite  may  be  unable  to  present  himself  at  the  religious 
center  on  one  of  the  three  pilgrimage  festivals.  Now  con- 
sider what  the  circumstances  of  P’s  age  were.  The  great 
bulk  of  the  Jewish  people  were  in  Babylonia,  but  there  were 
also  numerous  colonies  in  other  countries,  notably  Egypt.  A 
relatively  small  proportion  of  the  Jews  were  to  be  found  in 
Palestine.  For  by  far  the  greater  number,  attendance  at  the 
Temple  on  any  occasion  whatever  was  entirely  out  of  the 
question.  The  suggestion  that  this  law  belongs  to  that  age 
is  therefore  grotesque.  But  let  nobody  conclude  hastily  that 
this  is  a remark  applicable  merely  to  this  passage  — which 
the  critics  with  unconscious  humor  assign  to  a late  stratum 
of  P ! Except  in  this  one  instance,  the  entire  priestly  code 
from  first  to  last  assumes  that  the  whole  people  are  always 
quartered  within  easy  reach  of  the  religious  center.  Let  him 
who  can,  fit  this  into  the  circumstances  of  the  Exile! 


/ 


120 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


THE  LAW  OF  SLAUGHTER  FOR  FOOD 

A singularly  amusing  illustration  of  the  evidence  as  to  the 
historical  setting  is  afforded  by  the  laws  of  Lev.  xvii.,  as- 
signed not  to  P,  but  to  H,  an  earlier  code  of  uncertain  date. 

“At  the  beginning  of  this  chapter  stands  a law  providing 
that  every  Israelite  shall  bring  any  ox  or  lamb  or  goat  he 
may  desire  to  kill  to  the  door  of  the  tent  of  meeting.  As  to 
the  early  history  of  this  law,  the  critical  allegiance  is  divided 
between  competing  improbabilities.  I shall  therefore  only  deal 
with  the  crowning  impossibility,  which  commands  unanimous 
assent.  At  some  time  unknown,  some  person  unknown,  by 
editing  old  material  or  inventing  new  — it  matters  not  which 
— published,  under  the  guise  of  a camp  law,  a regulation 
which  was  intended  to  induce  every  Israelite  to  bring  any 
animal  that  was  to  be  killed  to  Jerusalem.  The  documentary 
theory  compels  the  critics  to  assume  that  this  legislation  was 
to  be  acted  on  in  Canaan,  for  nobody  would  believe  that  camp 
laws  were  forged  centuries  after  the  period  in  the  desert  had 
passed  into  history.  But  this  assumption  means  that  every 
Israelite,  no  matter  where  he  lived,  from  Beersheba  to  Dan, 
from  the  sea  to  the  desert,  was  to  go  off  to  Jerusalem  when- 
ever he  wanted  a chop  or  steak  for  his  dinner,  taking  with 
him  the  live  animal  from  which  it  was  to  be  obtained !” 1 

It  must  be  remembered  that  while  this  argument  applies 
primarily  to  H,  it  can  be  used  with  equal  force  against  the  P 
theory.  The  priestly  writer  who  never  hesitated  about  alter- 
ing or  excising  any  portion  of  H apparently  thought  this  law 
so  admirably  suited  to  the  conditions  of  the  post-exilic  age 
that  he  joyfully  incorporated  it  in  his  own  epoch-making 
work.  Fancy  having  to  go  from  Babylonia  or  Egypt  to  Jeru- 
1 Studies  in  Biblical  Law,  p.  41. 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


121 


salem  in  order  to  get  an  animal  slaughtered  to  provide  food 
for  dinner! 

OTHER  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCE 

It  has  been  shown  that  the  duties  of  the  Levites  in  P are 
such  as  would  be  impossible  in  any  age  other  than  the  Mo- 
saic, seeing  that  nobody  could  expect  a temple  to  be  taken 
down,  carried  about,  and  set  up  at  sundry  times:  we  have 
also  seen  that  P,  if  construed  in  the  fashion  of  the  critics, 
visits  with  death  the  performance  of  functions  assigned  to 
them  in  the  second  temple.  We  must  add  that  the  Ark  had 
ceased  to  exist,  so  that  the  arrangements  for  its  construction 
and  transport  are  a little  belated.  But  it  is  not  only  in  these 
points,  important  as  they  are,  that  P betrays  its  true  historical 
setting.  Read  the  account  of  the  war  with  the  Midianites 
(Num.  xxxi.)  and  the  elaborate  provisions  as  to  the  booty. 
Can  any  reasonable  being  suppose  that  such  commands  could 
have  had  any  meaning  at  all  in  the  days  of  the  Exile  or 
of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah?  When  and  where  were  the  Jews 
to  win  victories  and  acquire  booty?  And  how  about  the 
unions  with  Midianitish  virgins  authorized  by  verse  18? 
Was  there  any  danger  of  the  post-exilic  age  which  appeared 
more  menacing  to  the  religious  leaders  or  called  forth  more 
energetic  opposition  from  them  than  these  foreign  unions? 
Or,  again,  pass  to  the  last  chapter  of  Numbers  and  consider 
the  historical  setting.  What  is  the  complaint  urged  by  the 
deputation  that  waits  upon  Moses?  It  is  this.  If  heiresses 
“ be  married  to  any  of  the  sons  of  the  tribes  of  the  children 
of  Israel,  then  shall  their  inheritance  be  taken  away  from  the 
inheritance  of  our  fathers,  and  shall  be  added  to  the  inher- 
itance of  the  tribe  whereunto  they  shall  belong.”  What  a 
pressing  grievance  for  a legislator  to  consider  and  redress 


122 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


when  tribes  and  tribal  lots  had  long  since  ceased  to  exist  for 
ever ! 

THE  HIERARCHICAL  ORGANIZATION 

It  is  no  better  if  we  turn  to  the  hierarchical  organization 
proposed.  Urim  and  Thummim  were  not  used  after  the  Ex- 
ile. In  lieu  of  the  simple  conditions  — a small  number  of  full 
priests  and  a body  of  Levites  — we  find  a developed  hier- 
archy, priests,  Levites,  singers,  porters,  Nethinim,  sons  of 
Solomon’s  servants.  The  code  that  ex  hypothesi  was  forged 
to  deal  with  this  state  of  affairs  has  no  acquaintance  with 
them.  The  musical  services  of  the  Temple  are  as  much  be- 
yond its  line  of  vision  as  the  worship  of  the  Synagogue. 
Even  such  an  organization  as  that  betrayed  by  the  reference 
in  1 Sam.  ii.  36  to  the  appointment  by  the  high-priest  to 
positions  carrying  pecuniary  emoluments  is  far  beyond  the 
primitive  simplicity  of  P.  And  if  we  turn  to  the  individual 
sacrifices  it  contemplates,  we  find  only  fresh  evidence  of  early 
conditions.  If  a man  bring  a burnt-offering,  he  is  to  kill  and 
flay  it  himself!  There  are  similar  rules  in  the  case  of  other 
sacrifices.  Now  test  this  by  reference  to  such  sacrifices  as 
those  of  Solomon  (1  Kings  viii.  63).  Is  it  conceivable  that, 
as  luxury  and  refinement  increased  and  as  the  number  of 
victims  offered  were  multiplied,  the  well-to-do  classes  would 
themselves  kill  and  flay  the  animals?  Can  we  believe  that 
they  would  have  either  the  inclination  to  act  thus  or  the 
power  of  killing  a large  number  of  victims  single-handed  in 
any  reasonable  space  of  time?  The  more  this  is  pondered  the 
easier  it  is  to  see  how  it  came  about  that  heathens  performed 
services  of  this  kind  in  the  temple  of  Solomon,  and  the  more 
intelligible  do  the  changes  of  Ezekiel  and  the  representations 
of  the  Chronicler  become.  In  truth  here,  as  elsewhere,  P 
shows  us  the  conditions  of  the  earliest  age : and  subsequent 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


123 


changes  were  due  to  the  impossibility  of  applying  such  regu- 
lations without  modification  to  the  circumstances  of  more 
advanced  periods. 

EZRA  AND  THE  LAW 

One  other  piece  of  historical  evidence  must  be  mentioned 
before  we  pass  to  the  next  division  of  the  conservative  case. 
If  this  law  was  really  forged  about  the  time  of  Ezra,  how 
came  it  that  the  latter  so  fundamentally  mistook  its  object? 
The  statements  of  P constantly  show  that  its  provisions  were 
meant  only  to  reach  the  people  through  the  teaching  of  the 
priests  (Lev.  x.  11,  etc.;  cp.  Deut.  xxiv.  8;  xxxiii.  10,  etc.). 
How  then  are  we  to  explain  Ezra’s  conduct  in  reading  the 
whole  law  to  the  people? 

THE  LEGAL  EVIDENCE  OF  MOSAIC  DATE 

If  there  is  evidence  of  date  in  the  historical  setting  of  the 
laws,  there  is  also  plenty  in  the  more  technical  branches  of 
the  subject.  The  following  excerpt  from  an  article  in  the 
Churchman  for  May,  1906,  explains  and  illustrates  this  fea- 
ture : 

“ Some  years  ago  I had  occasion  to  read  Sir  Henry  Maine’s 
books  on  early  law  as  a continuous  whole.  In  doing  so  I was 
repeatedly  struck  by  the  general  similarity  of  the  ancient 
ideas  he  was  expounding  to  those  embodied  in  portions  of  the 
Mosaic  legislation.  The  laws  of  a nation  in  a given  age 
necessarily  reflect  its  habits  of  thought  and  civilization  with 
considerable  accuracy ; and  as  the  perusal  of  chapter  after 
chapter  that  dealt  with  the  legal  ideas  and  institutions  of  the 
ancient  Romans,  Indians,  Celts,  and  Britons  roused  recollec- 
tions of  the  Pentateuch,  the  idea  presented  itself  that  here  at 
last  was  an  independent  test  by  which  the  authenticity  of  the 
Mosaic  legislation  might  be  tried.  I turned  eagerly  to  the 


124 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateucl 


Bible  and  found  that  my  experiences  were  swiftly  realized. 
Of  the  archaic  complexion  of  the  jural  laws  there  could  be  no 
possible  doubt.  At  that  time  I had  only  the  vaguest  notions 
of  what  the  modern  critical  views  really  were;  but  I knew 
enough  to  realize  that,  if  the  laws  were  in  fact  ancient,  there 
must  be  some  fatal  error  in  any  theory  that  made  them  a 
comparatively  recent  literary  forgery.  Perhaps  the  best  way 
of  making  this  clear  to  general  readers  is  to  take  a very  sim- 
ple instance.  In  any  society  where  land  is  the  subject  of  in- 
dividual ownership,  certain  questions  must  necessarily  arise 
at  a very  early  period  of  its  history.  A farmer  dies.  What 
is  to  happen  to  his  farm?  There  must  be  some  ride  which 
determines  who  is  to  inherit  it.  In  otlier  words,  there  must 
be  a law7  of  intestate  succession.  Now,  it  happens  that  this  is 
one  of  the  topics  with  which  the  Pentateuch  deals.  A cer- 
tain Zelophehad  had  died  in  the  wilderness,  leaving  no  male 
issue.  His  daughters  raised  a claim  to  the  share  of  land 
which  would  have  been  allotted  to  their  father  had  he  lived. 
It  was  decided  that  their  contention  ought  to  be  upheld 
(Num.  xxvii.  Iff.),  and  the  rules  that  were  to  govern  the 
succession  to  a land-owner,  who  died  leaving  no  male  issue, 
were  laid  down  in  general  terms.  We  need  go  no  further 
into  the  question  for  our  immediate  purpose.  Anybody  who 
thinks  for  a few  minutes  will  be  able  to  recall  abundant  in- 
stances of  persons  who  within  his  own  experience  have  died 
without  leaving  sons ; and  it  is  obvious  that  no  large  commu- 
nity in  which  land  was  the  subject  of  individual  ownership 
could  exist  for  a year  without  the  question  being  raised  and 
settled.  When,  therefore,  we  find  in  the  Pentateuch  certain 
rules  purporting  to  have  been  laid  down  in  the  days  of  Moses 
which  deal  with  this  question,  we  are  bound  to  concede  that 
only  three  classes  of  hypotheses  can  by  any  chance  be  tenable. 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


125 


The  first  of  these  would  admit  that  we  have  here  genuine, 
very  ancient  rules  in  their  original  language.  In  the  abstract 
this  does  not  necessarily  imply  the  historical  character  of 
Moses  or  of  the  setting  in  which  we  at  present  find  them ; 
but,  as  we  shall  see  later,  it  undoubtedly  involves  this  in  fact. 
Secondly,  it  might  theoretically  be  said  that  these  rules  are 
in  substance  very  ancient,  but  have  been  put  into  a modern 
dress  by  a later  substitution  of  newer  expressions  for  others 
which  had  become  archaisms.  But,  this,  again,  breaks  down. 
The  higher  critics  do  not  venture  to  suggest  that  there  is  any 
philological  evidence  which  could  possibly  warrant  such  an 
assumption ; and  in  view  of  the  known  conservatism  of  law- 
yers all  the  world  over,  such  a theory  would  be  extremely 
improbable.  A third  possibility  can,  however,  be  conceived. 
A nation  may  change  its  law  of  succession,  and  if  there  were 
any  facts  to  warrant  this  theory,  it  might  perhaps  be  sug- 
gested that  at  some  date  such  a change  was  effected.  But, 
in  fact,  there  is  no  ground  for  any  such  suggestion.  That 
land  was  the  subject  of  individual  ownership  is  abundantly 
clear  from  scattered  references  in  the  historical  and  prophet- 
ical books;  nor  is  it  less  clear  that  there  was  a law  of  suc- 
cession and  of  redemption,  which  was  either  identical  with, 
or  similar  to,  that  which  we  find  in  the  Pentateuch.  If  we 
turn  from  such  considerations  to  larger  aspects  of  the  sub- 
ject, the  case  becomes  overwhelming.  A revolution  in  the 
law  of  succession  is  not  effected  by  a few  strokes  of  a forger’s 
pen  without  leaving  any  mark  in  history.  If  the  rules  laid 
down  in  the  case  of  Zelophehad’s  daughters  were  not  the  law 
of  the  Israelites  in  the  period  from  the  conquest  to  the  exile, 
it  is  clear  that  they  must  have  had  some  other  law.,  What  was 
this?  Plow  was  it  altered?  Was  it,  too,  attributed  to  God? 
If  so,  how  came  it  to  be  set  aside  so  lightly,  and  who  ventured 


126 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


to  forge  new  laws  when  there  were  rules  already  in  operation 
which  had  Divine  sanction?  How  came  anybody  to  believe 
that  God  had  confided  these  rules  to  Moses,  and  that  for 
centuries  other  rules  had  been  universally  observed,  while 
the  Divine  institution  had  remained  wholly  unknown?  And 
what  about  the  expectant  heirs  who  would  have  inherited, 
had  the  law  remained  unaltered,  but  were  dispossessed  by  the 
newly-discovered  forgery?  Did  they  believe  in  the  Divine 
origin  of  these  rules?  And  what  conceivable  motive  could 
the  forgers  have  had?  It  would  be  as  easy  as  it  is  unneces- 
sary to  multiply  such  questions.  The  critics  have  no  answer 
to  them.  Any  unprejudiced  reader  will  see  that  the  theory 
of  the  late  origin  of  such  rules  is  untenable.  He  will  under- 
stand, too,  why  it  is  that  a lawyer  reading  the  higher  critics 
should  feel  an  eager  desire  to  get  them  into  a witness-box 
and  cross-examine  them.” 

THE  LAW  OF  THEFT 

“ I have  taken  the  law  of  intestate  succession  as  a very 
simple  example  of  the  kind  of  evidence  that  comparative  and 
historical  jurisprudence  can  supply;  but  it  must  of  course  be 
clearly  understood  that  this  is  merely  a single  example.  The 
jural  laws  abound  in  evidences  of  date.  Take,  for  instance, 
the  rule  bv  which  the  thief  who  stole  a sheep  had  to  pay  four 
sheep  if  he  was  caught  in  the  act.  Everybody  knows  Na- 
than’s parable ; but  not  everybody  realizes  that  David’s  an- 
swer “he  shall  restore  the  lamb  fourfold ” (2  Sam.  xii.  6), 
is  good  evidence  of  the  existence  in  the  early  days  of  the 
monarchy  of  some  rule  which  gave  fourfold  compensation  in 
certain  cases  of  theft.  Still  less  do  most  readers  of  the  Bible 
understand  the  reason  for  the  rule,  or  dream  that  it  points 
clearly  to  a certain  state  of  civilization,  and  that  a very  early 
state.  Yet  there  are  parallels  in  many  countries,  the  most 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


127 


noteworthy  being-  provided  by  Roman  law,  according  to  which 
at  one  period  the  fur  manifestus,  or  thief  caught  in  the  act, 
had  to  pay  a fourfold  penalty ; while  the  fur  nec  manifestus, 
or  thief  who  was  not  caught  in  the  act,  only  made  double 
restitution.  Now,  the  reason  and  meaning  of  such  rules  are 
well  ascertained.  They  point  to  a state  of  society  in  which 
law  and  the  power  of  the  courts  are  still  weak  and  the  desire 
for  vengeance  is  strong.  It  is  to  prevent  the  injured  party 
from  revenging  himself,  to  avoid  the  possibility  of  a blood 
feud,  to  save  the  society  the  loss  of  one  or  more  fighting  men, 
that  the  bribe  of  a fourfold  restitution  is  held  out.  There  is 
clearly  no  moral  distinction  between  a thief  who  is  caught  in 
the  act  and  one  who  is  not.  The  guilt  is  the  same  in  both 
cases ; but  the  hot  and  sudden  anger,  the  danger  of  bloodshed 
are  not.  And  so  the  ancient  law-giver,  who  is  compelled  to 
take  into  consideration  the  circumstances  and  feelings  of  the 
society  with  which  he  has  to  deal,  adjusts  his  rules  accord- 
ingly. Indeed,  it  is  only  by  comparison  that  we  can  discover 
in  what  respects  the  laws  of  Moses  are  unique,  and  the  lack 
of  knowledge  which  would  enable  them  to  make  such  com- 
parisons has  led  some  recent  writers  into  astonishing  the- 
ories.” 1 

OTHER  LEGAL  EVIDENCE 

Other  similar  evidences  must  be  treated  more  shortly. 
The  following  is  extracted  from  the  writer’s  article  on  “ Law 
in  the  Old  Testament”  in  “Murray’s  Illustrated  Bible  Dic- 
tionary ” : “ The  laws  clearly  prove  that  the  intellectual  con- 

dition of  the  tribes  was  very  primitive.  Such  elementary 
distinctions  as  those  between  murder  and  manslaughter,  or 
compulsion  and  intentional  wrong-doing  are  only  expressed 
in  the  most  cumbrous  and  elementary  way.  Num.  xv.  22-31, 
‘The  Churchman,  May,  1906,  pp.  286-290. 


128 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


with  its  inadequate  distinction  between  unwitting  and  high- 
handed sins,  tells  the  same  tale.  Again,  the  whole  of  the 
‘ physiological  psychology  ’ that  finds  expression  in  regula- 
tions about  clean  and  unclean,  etc.,  testifies  most  clearly  to  the 
low  level  of  reflection  attained  by  the  people.  The  scanty  use 
of  writing  for  legal  purposes  is  also  significant.”  It  may  be 
added  that  the  laws  of  oaths  and  strangers  and  many  other 
individual  laws  corroborate  this  view.  So  again  do  the  social 
and  economic  conditions  portrayed  by  the  legislation.  But 
for  these  and  other  similar  topics  the  reader  must  consult 
“ Studies  in  Biblical  Law  ” and  the  legal  articles  in  “ Mur- 
ray’s Illustrated  Bible  Dictionary.” 

THE  EVIDENCE  OF  THE  NARRATIVE 

The  narrative  also  contains  much  that  indicates  date.  For 
one  thing  it,  like  the  legislation,  attests  the  prevalence  of  very 
primitive  conceptions  and  conditions.  As  examples,  we  may 
take  the  revelation  of  the  Name  of  God,  with  its  background 
in  early  ideas  and  the  rudimentary  arrangements  for  the  ad- 
ministration of  justice.  But  here  we  also  meet  with  signs  of 
contemporary  knowledge  that  are  not  without  their  weight. 
For  example,  Mr.  McNeile,  in  his  edition  of  Exodus,  writes 
on  vii.  19:  “Earthenware  vessels  are  not  mentioned;  and 
several  writers  note  that  it  is  only  in  earthenware  that  the 
discolored  Nile  waters  can  be  made  and  kept  clean.  But 
it  is  improbable  that  this  intentional  accuracy  is  to  be  as- 
cribed to  P.”  The  value  of  this  testimony  is  enhanced  by  the 
bias  it  reveals.  Accuracy  of  this  kind  would  be  most  improb- 
able in  such  a writer  as  the  P of  the  critical  case : on  the  other 
hand  it  could  not  be  absent  from  the  work  of  a contemporary. 
Here  again  are  a couple  of  instances  in  JE  taken  from  the 
standard  English  higher  critical  commentary  on  Numbers. 

“ It  will  thus  be  seen  that  we  have  here  a very  vivid  and 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


129 


true  picture  of  Egyptian  life ; and,  in  particular,  of  the  life  of 
the  lower  orders/’ 1 “ The  description  is  drawn  from  life, 

corresponding  accurately  to  modern  observations  in  its  var- 
ious details  — the  great  multitude  of  the  birds,  their  use  of 
wind  in  their  migration,  the  lowness  of  their  flight,  the  ease 
with  which  when  weary  they  are  netted.”  2 

Such  traits  cannot  be  without  their  weight  for  any  estimate 
of  authorship  and  date. 

The  External  Evidence  of  Date 
Putting  aside  for  the  moment  the  testimony  of  tradition, 
including  the  Bible  itself,  we  may  first  ask,  What  allusions 
have  we  to  the  existence  of  the  Mosaic  legislation?  Now  here 
some  care  is  necessary.  Very  many  passages  are  discounted 
by  the  critical  theory  by  means  of  two  positions.  First,  the 
critics  can  always  say,  “ Yes,  this  is  an  allusion  to  such  and 
such  an  event,  or  such  and  such  a custom ; but  you  cannot 
prove  that  the  author  had  before  him  the  exact  narrative  or 
the  exact  law  that  we  have  in  the  present  Pentateuch.”  That 
is  of  course  quite  true.  A reference  to  the  destruction  of 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah  only  implies  that  the  writer  was  ac- 
quainted with  the  story  from  some  source ; it  does  not  tell 
us  what  the  source  of  his  knowledge  was.  Similarly  with 
laws.  We  may  produce  instances  of  laws  being  in  operation, 
and  the  critics  reply,  “ Yes,  that  is  true : but  then  our  docu- 
ments incorporate  many  older  rules.”  In  particular  they  are 
fond  of  saying  that  P embodies  older  temple  praxis.  It  is 
difficult  not  to  feel  that  this  artificial  way  of  regarding  later 
references  will  disappear  when  once  the  facts  respecting  the 
main  branches  of  the  higher  critical  case  sink  in.  It  appears 
to  be  mainly  due  to  the  prevalence  of  Wellhausen’s  theories 

‘Gray,  Numbers,  p.  104  (on  Num.  xi.  5). 

2 Gray,  op.  cit .,  p.  117  (of  the  quails  in  Num.  xi.  31-33). 


130 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


respecting  “ sanctuaries  ” and  Levites,  and  with  the  spread 
of  sounder  reasoning  it  will  probably  vanish.  But  for  the 
present  we  must  reckon  with  it. 

The  second  position  is  the  division  of  the  Pentateuch  and 
the  assigning  of  different  dates  to  different  portions.  For 
example,  there  are  references  to  Deuteronomy  in  the  book  of 
Kings,  but  then  the  author  of  that  book  admittedly  lived  after 
the  reign  of  Josiah:  hence  these  references  do  not  damage 
the  hypothesis,  since  they  prove  acquaintance  with  Deuter- 
onomy but  not  with  Leviticus.  For  these  reasons  it  is  use- 
less to  quote  many  of  the  obvious  references  to  the  Pentateuch. 
There  remain  a number  of  passages  which  even  these  hy- 
potheses cannot  invalidate. 

EZEKIEL  AND  P 

It  is  freely  said  that  Ezekiel  may  have  known  H,  but  was 
unacquainted  with  P.  Now  there  is  an  important  passage  in 
which  the  prophet  comes  as  near  to  a direct  statement  that 
he  knew  P as  it  was  possible  for  any  author  to  come  who 
lived  before  the  critical  theory  had  been  invented.  In  xxii. 
26  we  read : “ Her  priests  have  done  violence  to  my  law,  and 
have  profaned  my  holy  things : they  have  put  no  difference 
between  the  holy  and  the  common,  neither  have  they  caused 
men  to  discern  between  the  unclean  and  the  clean,”  etc.  I 
turn  to  P and  I read,  “And  ye  shall  put  difference  between 
the  holy  and  the  common,  and  between  the  unclean  and  the 
clean ; and  ye  shall  teach  the  children  of  Israel  all  the  statutes 
which  the  Lord  hath  spoken  unto  them  by  the  hand  of 
Moses”  (Lev.  x.  10  f. ; cf.  the  following  chapters).  What 
can  Ezekiel  possibly  have  meant,  save  that  there  was  to  his 
knowledge  a law  in  existence  which  dealt  with  the  topics  of 
P,  and  used  the  language  of  P,  and  like  P was  to  be  taught 
to  the  people  by  the  priests?  Other  phrases  might  refer  to 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


131 


H : but  here  we  have  the  clearest  possible  indication  of  the 
existence  of  P.  If  words  have  any  meaning  at  all,  Ezekiel 
knew  of  a law  of  unquestionable  authority  which  had  been 
violated  by  the  priests. 

LAW  AND  TEACHING 

At  this  point  it  is  necessary  once  more  to  emphasize  a fact 
that  is  usually  overlooked.  The  uniform  representation  of 
the  Pentateuch  is  that  a large  body  of  law  was  not  intended 
to  reach  the  people  directly,  but  only  through  the  teaching  of 
the  priests.  That  appears  clearly  enough  in  the  passage  just 
quoted  from  Leviticus  and  in  other  passages  of  that  book  and 
of  Deuteronomy.  As  a necessary  consequence  the  allusions 
to  P that  we  may  expect  before  the  Exile  can  only  be  allusions 
to  a law  that  is  to  reach  the  people  through  the  priests.  That 
teaching  was  a priestly  function  appears  repeatedly  in  the 
allusions  of  the  prophets  and  is  freely  conceded  by  the  critics. 
The  question,  therefore,  narrows  itself  down  to  this:  Was 
that  teaching  the  result  or  the  precursor  of  the  written  law? 
Hosea  writes : “ My  people  are  destroyed  for  lack  of  knowl- 
edge: because  thou  hast  rejected  knowledge,  I will  also  re- 
ject thee,  that  thou  shalt  be  no  priest  to  me:  seeing  thou  hast 
forgotten  the  law  of  thy  God,  I also  will  forget  thy  children  ” 
(iv.  6).  This  certainly  proves  the  existence  of  a law  which 
was  not  being  properly  taught  by  the  priests.  It  is  said  with 
some  reason  that  the  contents  of  this  law  seem  to  have  been 
of  a moral  nature.  So  are  many  of  the  contents  of  Leviticus 
— especially  those  assigned  to  H.  But  the  same  prophet  car- 
ries us  a good  deal  further. 

hosea's  testimony 

“ Because  Ephraim  hath  multiplied  altars  to  sin,  altars 
have  been  unto  him  to  sin.  Though  I write  for  him  my  law 


132 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


in  ten  thousand  precepts,  they  are  counted  as  a strange  thing. 
As  for  the  sacrifices  of  mine  offerings,  they  sacrifice  flesh  and 
eat  it;  but  the  Lord  accepteth  them  not”  (viii.  11-13),  and 
here  the  context  points  to  ritual.  It  cannot  be  doubted  that 
this  passage'  means  that  to  the  knowledge  of  the  prophet  there 
was  a written  law  of  great  volume.  Its  observance  would 
have  prevented  Ephraim  from  multiplying  altars  to  sin;  the 
altar  it  sanctioned  would  not  have  been  unto  him  to  sin,  i.e. 
it  would  have  acted  as  a center  of  righteousness  if  the  law 
had  been  properly  observed.  The  covenant  and  the  law  of 
the  first  verse  of  tl^ie  chapter  might  of  course  refer  to  Ex. 
xik.-xxiv.,  but  this  cannot  be  said  of  the  ten  thousand  writ- 
ten precepts  which  must  refer  to  a written  law  of  great  bulk. 
There  are  other  allusions  (e.g.  Amos  ii.  4),  but  these  are 
more  capable  of  being  evaded  by  the  critical  hypotheses. 

EVIDENCE  OF  THE  EXISTENCE  OF  INSTITUTIONS 
Similarly  there  are  many  passages  in  the  prophets  and  his- 
torical books  that  testify  to  the.  existence  of  Pentateuchal 
laws  and  institutions;  but,  as  already  explained,  it  is  sought 
to  neutralize  this  testimony  by  suggesting  that  the  rules  ex- 
isted and  were  acted  on  before  they  were  written  down.  For 
example,  Amos  says : “ But  ye  gave  the  Nazirites  wine  to 
drink”  (ii.  12).  The  law  on  the  subject  occurs  only  in  P, 
but  it  would  be  said  that  here  the  late  author  had  taken  up 
the  earlier  rule.  Hence  such  passages  do  not  persuade  the 
Wellhausen  critics  of  their  error.  But  fortunately  there  are 
in  P certain  institutions  of  which  the  critics  definitely  assert 
that  they  are  late.  Accordingly  references  that  prove  the 
earlier  existence  of  such  institutions  have  a very  different 
probative  value.  Thus  it  is  alleged  that  before  the  Exile 
there  was  but  one  national  burnt-offering  and  one  national 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


133 


meal-offering  each  day;  whereas,  Num.  xxviii.  demands  two. 
Now  in  1 Kings  xviii.  29,  36,  we  find  references  to  the  offer- 
ing of  the  evening  meal-offering,  but  2 Kings  iii.  20  speaks  of 
“ the  time  of  offering  the  meal-offering  ” in  connection  with 
the  morning.  Therefore  these  two  meal-offerings  were  act- 
ually in  existence  centuries  before  the  date  assigned  to  P — 
who,  on  the  critical  theory,  first  introduced  them.  So  2 Kings 
xvi.  15  speaks  of  “ the  morning  burnt-offering,  and  the  even- 
ing meal-offering  ....  with  the  burnt-offering  of  all  the  peo- 
ple of  the  land  and  their  meal-offering.”  This  again  gives  us 
the  two  burnt-offerings,  though,  on  the  hypothesis,  they  were 
unknown  to  preexilic  custom.  Similarly  in  other  cases : Jer. 
xxxii.  shows  us  the  land  laws  in  actual  operation:  Ezekiel  is 
familiar  with  the  jubilee  laws  — though,  on  the  critical  hy- 
pothesis, these  did  not  yet  exist.  Jeroboam  was  acquainted 
with  P’s  date  for  Tabernacles,  though  the  critics  allege  that 
the  date  was  first  fixed  in  the  Exile.  On  these  and  similar 
points  reference  may  be  made  to  the  writer’s  “ Studies  in  Bib- 
lical Law  ” and  “ Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism,”  and  also 
to  the  legal  articles  in  “ Murray’s  Illustrated  Bible  Diction- 
ary.” 


XI 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PRE-MOSAIC  DATE 

There  are  many  signs  that  the  book  of  Genesis  contains 
materials  that  are  in  many  cases  older  than  the  time  of  Moses 
— in  some  instances  than  the  time  of  Abraham.  A good  deal 
of  attention  is  given  by  the  critics  to  details  which,  as  they 
allege,  prove  that  some  of  the  stories  of  Genesis  originated 
in  Canaan.  It  is  claimed  that  the  minute  accuracy  of  the 
geography  testifies  to  their  origin,  and  also  such  expressions 
as  “ seaward  ” for  “ westward.”  Then  it  is  argued  that  if  the 
stories  really  come  from  Canaan  they  cannot  be  Mosaic.  They 
must  date  from  after  the  conquest.  But  the  fact  is  that  if  the 
patriarchs  did  really  live  in  Canaan,  as  the  narrative  states, 
any  genuine  traditions  of  their  lives  would  necessarily  display 
these  characteristics  unless  they  had  been  rewritten  before 
being  incorporated  in  the  Pentateuch. 

THE  EVIDENCE  OF  GENESIS  X.  19 

The  question  therefore  arises,  whether  it  is  possible  to 
point  to  any  evidence  that  indisputably  refers  to  a pre-Mosaic 
period  and  cannot  have  been  composed  in  post-Mosaic  times. 
The  answer  is  in  the  affirmative. 

“ In  Gen.  x.  19  we  read,  ‘As  thou  goest  toward  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah  and  Admah  and  Zeboiim.”  The  places  named 
were  destroyed  in  Abraham’s  lifetime.  It  follows  that  this 
passage  must  have  been  originally  composed  before  the  catas- 
trophe narrated  in  Gen.  xix.  Mr.  Carpenter  attributes  it, 
however,  to  a late  stratum  of  ‘ J/  making  it  subsequent  to 
xiii.  10,  which  was  obviously  composed  after  the  destruction 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


135 


of  Sodom.  Dr.  Driver  assigns  the  passage  to  ‘ J,’  and  writes : 

“ ‘Nor  does  the  language  of  “ J ” and  “ E ” bring  us  to  any 
more  definite  conclusion.  Both  belong  to  the  golden  period 
of  Hebrew  literature.  They  resemble  the  best  parts  of  Judges 
and  Samuel  (much  of  which  cannot  be  greatly  later  than 
David's  own  time)  ; but  whether  they  are  actually  earlier  or 
later  than  these,  the  language  and  style  do  not  enable  us  to 
say.  . . . All  things  considered,  both  “ J ” and  “ E ” may  be 
assigned  with  the  greatest  probability  to  the  early  centuries 
of  the  monarchy.’  (Literature  of  the  Old  Testament  (sixth 
edition),  pp.  124-125.) 

“ In  other  words,  Dr.  Driver  would  on  “ literary  ” grounds 
be  prepared  to  accept  a date  1,000  years  after  the  age  of 
Abraham  as  the  time  of  composition  of  this  passage.  What 
precisely  is  the  value  of  a method  which  does  not  permit  its 
ablest  and  most  cautious  exponent  to  arrive  at  results  that  are 
correct  to  within  1,000  years?”1 

THE  LEGAL  EVIDENCE 

Similarly  with  the  legal  evidence,  which,  in  the  case  of  the 
book  of  Genesis,  is  very  interesting  and  convincing. 

“ By  an  application  of  the  comparative  method  it  is  possi- 
ble to  show  the  minute  accuracy  of  many  of  the  narratives  in 
Genesis.  Evidence  comes  unexpectedly  from  the  ends  of  the 
earth  to  corroborate  out-of-the-way  details  of  the  history. 
Take,  for  instance,  the  story  of  Jacob’s  service  for  Rachel. 
This  form  of  marriage  — called  by  the  Germans  Dienstehe, 
service-marriage  — is  said  by  Post  to  be  universal.  The  ser- 
vice is  a regular  substitute  for  the  bride-price  (Hebrew 
Mohar)  when  the  suitor  is  too  poor  to  find  the  price  in  any 
other  way.  Sometimes  the  bridegroom  becomes  the  slave  of 
the  bride’s  family  for  good.  Among  other  communities  the 
'The  Churchman,  February,  1908,  p.  95. 


136 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


service  only  endures  for  a term  of  years.  Instances  are 
quoted  ranging  from  six  months  to  seven  years.  And  so,  in 
the  light  of  the  comparative  evidence,  it  becomes  clear  that 
Jacob,  Laban,  Leah,  and  Rachel  were  individuals,  not  tribes. 
What  sense  could  the  story  of  the  service  bear  if  we  were 
dealing  with  tribes?  The  evidence  is,  of  course,  cumulative. 
It  is  not  one  touch  that  is  corroborated,  but  many.”  1 

“ But,  then,  may  it  not  be  argued  that  the  legal  conditions 
were  common  to  the  post-Mosaic  period  and  the  patriarchal 
age  ? Can  it  not  be  said  that  in  legal  matters  the  narratives  are 
more  or  less  coloured  by  the  ideas  of  later  ages?  The  answer 
— - which  is  important  — is  in  the  negative.  There  are,  of  course, 
no  sufficient  materials  for  writing  a history  of  Hebrew  law  in 
Biblical  times,  but,  so  far  as  it  goes,  the  evidence  of  the  Book 
of  Genesis  will  not  fit  in  with  the  critical  theories.  Perhaps 
the  most  interesting  case  is  the  conveyance  of  the  field  of 
Machpelah  to  Abraham,  a passage  attributed  by  the  critics 
to  the  supposititious  exilic  or  post-exilic  ‘ P.’  Like  every 
other  legal  transaction  in  the  Book  of  Genesis,  and  unlike 
every  Babylonian  legal  tablet,  it  is  conspicuous  for  the  ab- 
sence of  writing.  When  it  is  contrasted  with  the  very  mod- 
ern form  of  conveyance  with  which  we  meet  in  Jer.  xxxii.,  it 
at  once  becomes  evident  that  it  represents  a much  more  prim- 
itive stage  of  legal  development.  The  instance  is  peculiarly 
important,  because  we  are  asked  to  believe  that  ‘ P ’ (who  is 
supposed  to  have  been  very  much  under  Babylonian  influ- 
ence) forged  or  inserted  the  narrative  of  the  purchase  of  the 
cave  of  Machpelah  for  the  purpose  of  giving  validity  to  the 
claim  of  the  Israelites  to  the  land  of  Canaan.  Now,  had  that 
been  so,  it  is  evident  that  a writer  who,  according  to  the  crit- 
ics, is  distinguished  by  a peculiarly  lawyer-like  style,  would 
lrThe  Churchman,  January,  1908,  p.  17. 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


13? 

never  have  failed  to  mention  every  particular  that  was  ma- 
terial to  the  complete  validity  of  the  transaction  according  to 
the  ideas  of  his  own  age.  Nor  can  it  be  said  that  he  would 
have  been  deterred  by  any  scantiness  of  information  or  any 
scruples  as  to  the  truth,  for  ex  hypothesi  he  was  an  admitted 
master  of  fiction,  wholly  devoid  of  anything  that  we  should 
regard  as  historical  conscience.” 

THE  LAW  OF  HOMICIDE 

“ The  law  of  homicide  also  presents  us  with  some  inter- 
esting testimony.  The  story  of  Cain  the  outlaw,  subject  to 
death  at  the  hands  of  any  man  who  met  him,  reveals  a legal 
institution  well  known  to  students  of  early  law.  But  here  it 
is  important  to  notice  that  it  brings  us  face  to  face  with  an 
earlier  state  of  law  than  that  postulated  by  the  Mosaic  legis- 
lation. The  blood  feud  is  not  yet  recognised.  It  is  not  yet 
the  duty  of  the  avenger  of  the  blood  alone  to  exact  retribution 
for  the  crime.  The  murderer  is  expelled  from  the  religious 
and  social  community,  and  left  as  an  outcast  from  the  peace 
and  protection  of  the  tribe,  to  encounter  single-handed  any 
stranger  or  enemy  — the  terms  are  synonymous  in  early 
times  — he  may  meet.  Nor  is  the  position  much  better  for 
the  higher  critics  if  we  turn  to  ‘ P ’ : ‘ Whoso  sheddeth  the 
blood  of  man,  by  man  shall  his  blood  be  shed.’  That  is  not 
the  law  of  ‘ JE  ’ or  ‘ D ’ or  ‘ P ’ with  the  place  appointed  for 
refuge  in  certain  cases  of  homicide.  The  distinction  between 
murder  and  other  classes  of  homicide  has  not  yet  been  drawn. 
Here,  again,  there  are  universal  parallels  to  the  course  of 
legal  history  as  depicted  in  the  Bible.  The  distinction  is  else- 
where later  than  the  treatment  of  all  cases  of  homicide  as 
being  on  the  same  footing.” 


138 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


THE  FATHER'S  POWER 

‘'Another  matter  that  has  probably  never  been  considered 
by  any  higher  critic  is  the  history  of  the  patria  potestas  — the 
legal  power  of  a father  over  his  children.  As  at  Rome,  so 
among  the  ancient  Hebrews,  the  jus  vitae  necisque  (the 
power  of  life  and  death)  was  at  first  quite  unlimited.  We 
have  several  instances  of  this,  the  most  striking  being  Judah’s 
conduct  to  his  daughter-in-law  (xxxviii.  24),  who  had  passed 
into  his  potestas  by  her  marriage,  and  Reuben’s  treatment  of 
his  children  (xlii.  37).  It  is  to  be  noted  that  in  neither  case 
is  there  any  suggestion  of  a trial.  The  paterfamilias  acts  with 
plenary  authority.  But  in  both  Rome  and  ancient  Israel  this 
power  underwent  curtailment.  It  is  true  that  the  power  to 
sell  or  pledge  children  endured  to  the  end  of  Old  Testament 
times  (Neh.  v.  5),  and  probably  the  paternal  power  was  in 
many  ways  extremely  extensive  till  a very  late  period,  but 
the  family  jurisdiction  in  cases  of  wrong-doing  had  been 
greatly  curtailed  before  the  days  of  Moses.  I am  not  think- 
ing merely  of  the  provisions  of  Deut.  xxi.  18-21.  If  they 
were  all  we  had,  the  critics  might  reasonably  suggest  that  the 
relative  dates  of  ‘ D ’ and  ‘ JE  ’ would  account  for  the  altera- 
tion. But  it  is  clear  that  in  Ex.  xxi  15,  17,  offences  against 
parents  are  no  longer  regarded  as  matters  for  the  domestic 
tribunal,  but  are  included  within  the  competence  of  the  ordi- 
nary courts  of  elders.  Times  have  changed  since  the  days 
of  Judah  and  Tamar.”  1 

THE  ARCHAEOLOGICAL  EVIDENCE 
It  is  in  the  light  of  these  facts  that  we  turn  to  glance  at  the 
archaeological  evidence.  In  one  way  or  another  a good  deal 
of  corroboration  of  the  biblical  narrative  has  been  obtained, 
1 The  Churchman,  January,  1909.  pp.  19-21. 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


139 


but  it  is  sought  to  neutralize  this  by  hypotheses  of  later  bor- 
rowings. If,  for  example,  some  detail  of  P is  corroborated 
by  some  Assyriological  tablet,  the  critics  forthwith  strive  to 
account  for  it  by  conjuring  up  a picture  of  a later  priestly 
writer  sitting  in  a Babylonian  library  in  the  exilic  or  post- 
exilic  period  and  endeavoring  to  mould  the  information  derived 
from  his  researches  into  a monotheistic  Hebrew  narrative. 
If  J shows  affinities  to  old  deluge  stories,  we  are  reminded 
that  Palestine  was  saturated  with  foreign  culture  at  many 
periods,  so  that  the  legends  may  have  been  current  in  the 
country  long  before  J wrote.  If,  again,  the  story  of  Joseph 
proves  to  be  minutely  true  to  old  Egyptian  customs,  we  are 
asked  to  think  of  Messrs.  J and  E visiting  Egypt  or  else 
cramming  up  Egyptian  data  from  local  sources  of  informa- 
tion in  order  to  impart  the  appropriate  coloring  to  their  ro- 
mances. 

IMPOSSIBILITY  OF  THE  CRITICAL  EXPLANATIONS 
It  is  true  that  nothing  could  be  less  artificial  and  studied 
than  the  stories  of  Genesis,  but  considerations  of  that  kind 
are  entirely  foreign  to  the  mental  outlook  of  the  critics.  But 
the  whole  body  of  this  evidence  takes  on  a different  com- 
plexion in  the  light  of  the  facts  that  we  have  considered.  If 
Gen.  x.  19  can  have  been  composed  only  in  or  before  the  age 
of  Abraham,  archaeological  confirmations  of  other  portions  of 
that  chapter  are  not  to  be  dismissed  as  purely  fortuitous  or  as 
the  result  of  the  hypothetical  P’s  imaginary  Babylonian  re- 
searches. If  the  Noachian  law  of  homicide  is  proved  by  com- 
parative jurisprudence  to  be  indubitably  earlier  than  the  law 
of  Numbers  — itself  exceptionally  archaic  — it  cannot  be  sup- 
posed that  the  narrative  in  which  it  stands  (the  sequel  of  the 
flood  story  in  P)  is  an  exilic  borrowing  from  a people  who 


140 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


had  a different  law  of  homicide.  Given  a law  that  is  not  Baby- 
lonian and  is  more  primitive  than  that  of  JE  or  P or  D,  but 
one  conclusion  is  possible.  No  priestly  forger  could  have 
composed  a narrative  that  would  be  corroborated  by  re- 
searches conducted  some  twenty-four  centuries  later  into  the 
customs  and  institutions  of  primitive  societies  all  over  the 
world.  Therefore  when  we  find  archaeological  support  of  the 
incidents  of  Genesis  we  may  safely  conclude  that  the  coinci- 
dences are  not  due  to  the  causes  suggested  by  the  critics,  but 
to  the  genuine  antiquity  of  the  tradition.  Were  they  not, 
anachronisms  would  inevitably  have  crept  in. 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL  CONFIRMATION 
In  point  of  fact  the  accuracy  of  the  delineation  of  old 
Egyptian  life  incidentally  given  by  Genesis  has  been  demon- 
strated by  the  growth  of  knowledge,  and  nothing  is  now 
heard  of  the  once  familiar  argument  that  the  local  coloring  is 
entirely  false  to  the  facts  of  old  Egyptian  life.  Again,  a his- 
torical background  has  been  provided  for  Gen.  xiv.,  and 
Babylonian  traditions  of  a deluge  bearing  some  resemblance 
to  the  biblical  story  have  been  recovered.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  amount  of  corroboration  that  is  given  by  Assyriology  is 
often  greatly  exaggerated.  The  creation  accounts  produced 
are  extraordinarily  unlike  the  narrative  of  Genesis,  and  even 
the  alleged  connection  between  the  biblical  and  the  Babylon- 
ian stories  of  the  deluge  cannot  be  said  to  have  been  demon- 
strated. Yet  it  is  intrinsically  probable  that  if  the  flood  was 
a historical  event,  accounts  of  it  would  have  been  preserved 
in  Babylonia,  and  in  view  of  Abraham’s  migration,  the  biblical 
narrative  should  bear  a strong  likeness  to  them.  That  and 
the  hope  of  upsetting  the  documentary  theory  are  probably 
responsible  for  the  readiness  of  some  writers  to  exaggerate 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


141 


every  feature  of  resemblance.  But  whether  or  not  the  actual 
narratives  display  close  philological  likeness,  the  historical 
fact  is  undoubtedly  corroborated  by  the  existence  of  such  le- 
gends in  Babylonia,  while  scientific  support  has  been  provided 
by  Professor  G.  Frederick  Wright  in  his  very  valuable  “ Sci- 
entific Confirmations  of  Old  Testament  History.” 


XII 

THE  TESTIMONY  OF  TRADITION 

The  unanimous  testimony  of  Jewish,  Samaritan,  and  Chris- 
tian tradition  assigns  to  Moses  the  authorship  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. This  tradition  is  embodied  in  numerous  passages  of 
the  Old  Testament  itself.  It  is  found  from  the  book  of  Joshua 
onwards.  It  was  strong  enough  to  induce  the  Samaritans  — 
who  were  bitter  enemies  of  the  Jews  — to  adopt  this  work  as 
their  Law,  although  they  did  not  accept  any  of  the  other  can- 
onical books  of  the  Jews.  How  unlikely  that  they  would  have 
acted  thus  if  they  had  not  had  the  strongest  reasons  for  be- 
lieving in  its  genuineness!  The  exilic  or  post-exilic  origin  of 
P need  not  be  further  considered  at  this  point,  for  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  suppose  that  any  man  who  is  capable  of  weighing  evi- 
dence could  believe  in  this  theory  after  carefully  considering 
what  has  been  said  above ; but  would  the  Samaritans  have 
accepted  the  Pentateuch  at  all  if  they  had  not  believed  in 
its  authenticity?  But  the  evidence  is  not  confined  to  the  Sa- 
maritans and  the  later  Canonical  books  supported  by  Jewish 
and  Christian  tradition.  There  are  plain  statements  in  the 
Pentateuch  itself  ascribing  to  Moses  the  writing  of  at  any 
rate  certain  portions,  and  those  portions  belong  to  all  the  three 
main  supposititious  sources  JE . D,  and  P.  Further,  every  law 


142 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


in  the  Pentateuch  is  distinctly  ascribed  to  the  Mosaic  Age  — 
in  almost  all  cases  to  Moses  himself.  A theory  of  the  purely 
oral  transmission  of  these  laws  cannot  be  held  to  possess  the 
slightest  probability  when  considered  in  the  light  of  the  con- 
siderations which  arise  from  the  bulk  and  nature  of  the  legis- 
lation, the  archaeological  testimony  to  the  familiarity  of  writing 
in  the  Mosaic  Age,  and  the  clear  statements  of  the  Pentateuch 
that  Moses  did  in  fact  write.  And  so  there  only  remains  one 
possibility  — to  accept  the  statements  of  the  narrative  itself 
and  admit  that  these  laws  were  in  fact  written  down,  and  that 
by  the  person  to  whom  their  writing  is  ascribed.  No  other 
hypothesis  can  be  said  to  be  at  all  tenable. 


XIII 


CONSTRUCTIVE  CONCLUSIONS 

In  seeking  to  sum  up  roughly  the  main  results  of  the  crit- 
ical controversy,  we  are  at  once  attracted  by  the  fact  that  the 
record  will  not  be  one  of  losses  only.  On  the  contrary,  a book 
that  emerges  triumphantly  from  such  an  ordeal  as  that  to 
which  the  Pentateuch  has  been  subjected,  does  not  return  with 
diminished  authority.  Nor  again  is  the  ultimate  issue  likely 
to  be  without  a special  value  of  its  own.  It  may  justly  be 
claimed  that  in  many  matters  our  knowledge  and  understand- 
ing of  the  work  of  the  great  lawgiver  have  been  very  mate- 
rially increased.  The  following  appear  to  be  some  of  the 
main  products  of  the  discussion. 

Traditional  accretions  to  the  work  of  Moses  are  removed  in 
more  than  one  way.  The  most  important  of  those  accretions 
is  the  view  taken  of  the  meaning  of  the  legislation  and  the 
consequent  interpretation  of  the  later  history  of  Israel.  A 
better  construction  of  the  laws,  and  an  increased  comprehen- 
sion of  their  meaning  and  object  are  no  insignificant  gain. 
And  here  may  be  explained  the  reason  for  omitting  from  the 
present  volume  any  discussion  of  the  perplexities  of  order 
in  the  legal  sections  and  the  frequent  repetitions.  The  writer 
has  often  dealt  with  these  topics,  but  he  feels  that  owing  to 
their  technical  nature  they  would  be  out  of  place  in  a pub- 
lication like  the  present,  while  the  amount  of  detail  involved 
for  any  adequate  handling  of  the  subject  would  make  inordi- 
nate demands  on  the  available  space.  Yet  he  would  venture 
to  quote  the  following  passage  from  the  Princeton  Theolog- 


144 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


ical  Review  for  April,  1907,  as  showing  the  possibility  of 
taking  up  an  attitude  that  is  fundamentally  different  from  that 
of  the  critics,  and  suggesting  very  divergent  solutions  of  the 
difficulties : 

THE  PENTATEUCH  A PIECE  OF  STATESMANSHIP 

“ In  the  view  of  the  whole  critical  school  the  Pentateuch  is 
at  best  an  ordinary  book,  at  worst  a field  for  practising  their 
quaint  arithmetical  exercises.  In  my  view  it  is  not  primarily 
a piece  of  literature  at  all;  it  is  a piece  of  statesmanship  and 
must  be  judged  as  such.  While,  therefore,  I recognise  that 
it  is  impossible  for  anybody  now  to  dive  into  the  mind  of 
Moses  so  far  as  to  be  able  to  assign  precise  reasons  for  the 
position  of  each  individual  command  in  the  whole  complex 
body  of  legislation,  I believe  that  attention  to  the  considera- 
tions that  must  have  been  present  to  the  law-giver’s  mind, 
aided  by  a careful  study  of  many  points  that  have  hitherto 
escaped  notice,  will  enable  us  not  merely  to  answer  Dr.  Dri- 
ver’s arguments,  but  also  to  throw  new  light  on  problems  that 
have  hitherto  remained  unsolved/' 1 

THE  ORDER  OF  THE  LAWS 

Those  who  may  desire  to  see  how  this  view  can  be  worked 
out  are  referred  to  the  article  from  which  this  extract  is  taken, 
and  to  the  other  publications  that  have  been  mentioned  in  the 
course  of  the  discussion.  This  much,  however,  I wish  to 
make  clear  at  once.  The  recognition  of  the  Mosaic  authen- 
ticity of  the  Pentateuchal  legislation  does  not  mean  the  shirk- 
ing of  questions  relating  to  the  order  or  the  recurrence  of 
laws:  on  the  contrary,  it  involves  the  answering  of  such 
questions  by  means  of  the  resources  of  textual  criticism,  and 
the  various  branches  of  jurisprudence.  One  single  example 
may  perhaps  be  given.  A peasant  who  experiences  bad  sea- 
1 Princeton  Theological  Review,  April,  1907,  pp.  190  f . 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 


145 


sons  inevitably  feels  the  want  of  money.  Usually  he  has  to 
borrow.  But  money  is  frequently  not  to  be  had,  save  for 
interest  and  on  security.  In  ancient  societies  such  security 
could  be  given  not  merely  on  his  land  but  on  his  person. 
Hence  there  is  a natural  association  of  ideas  between  laws 
regulating  loans  and  interest,  land  laws,  and  laws  relating  to 
loss  of  freedom  through  insolvency.  That  association  of 
ideas  was  inevitably  represented  when  the  problem  was 
treated  in  antiquity,  whether  on  its  legal  or  historical  side. 
Historically  we  may  see  the  various  factors  at  work  .in  the 
account  of  Joseph  and  the  Egyptians  at  the  time  of  the  fam- 
ine: we  also  meet  with  the  same  association  in  ancient  legis- 
lations. Leviticus  xxv.  presents  us  with  an  instance  of  this, 
and  if  we  look  at  that  chapter  in  the  Oxford  Hexateuch  we 
shall  see  that  the  critics  have  been  totally  unable  to  make  head 
or  tail  of  the  grouping  of  subjects.  Yet  once  the  background 
is  restored  everything  becomes  obvious.  That  is  one  instance, 
and  a simple  one,  of  the  way  in  which  the  investigations  that 
the  critical  assault  has  necessitated  tend  to  throw  light  on  the 
work  of  the  lawgiver  by  leading  to  a restoration  of  the  his- 
torical circumstances,  a more  scientific  apprehension  of  the 
meaning  of  his  words,  and  consequently  a clearer  insight  into 
his  work  and  achievements. 

OTHER  RESULTS 

Similarly  with  the  history.  Here  perhaps  the  most  striking 
illustration  is  that  which  has  already  been  cited  — the  rehabil- 
itation of  Ezekiel. 

Again,  as  already  explained,  the  textual  researches  which 
have  been  stimulated  by  the  higher  critical  theories  must  end 
by  giving  us  clear  pictures  of  many  transactions  that  had  been 
enveloped  in  obscurity.  The  higher  critics  have  not  succeeded 


146 


The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch. 


in  doing  what  they  thought  they  had,  but  they  have  been  suc- 
cessful in  their  attack  on  a few  glosses  (such  as  Deut.  x.  6 f.) 
and  a few  corrupt  words,  and  also  on  the  order  of  the  present 
text. 

Once  more,  the  discussion  has  revealed  the  fact  that  in  the 
book  of  Genesis  Moses  undoubtedly  incorporated  pre-Mosaic 
sources,  whether  oral  or  written,  in  some  cases  without  mod- 
ifying their  phraseology. 

These  are  the  main  scholarly  gains  from  the  discussion  pro- 
voked by  the  higher  critics  — a better  comprehension  of  laws 
and  history,  a better  text,  the  recognition  that  the  Penta- 
teuch incorporates  post-Mosaic  notes,  and  that  Genesis  con- 
tains many  pre-Mosaic  elements.  As  to  the  fantastic  docu- 
mentary and  evolutionary  hypotheses,  they  are  doomed,  how- 
ever numerous  the  professional  reputations  and  publishing 
enterprises  that  depend  upon  them. 

For  those  who  live  in  our  age  the  Pentateuch  does  not  hold 
the  position  which  it  once  held  and  will  hold  again.  We  are 
not  allowed  simply  to  believe  without  question.  The  truth  we 
desire  is  not  ours  for  the  asking:  we  are  called  upon  to  fight 
for  and  win  it  — often  under  circumstances  that  tend  to  pro- 
found discouragement.  Yet  this  state  of  affairs  brings  its  own 
blessings  in  its  train.  The  truth  for  which  one  has  fought  and 
won  is  not  likely  to  be  less  dear  or  less  strongly  held  than  that 
which  was  gained  without  difficulty  or  sacrifice. 


INDEX  I 


Genesis 

xix. 

98 

i.  1-ii.  3 

13  f.,  87 

xix.  29 

27,  30 

i.  1 

13  f.,  87 

XX. 

34 

ii.  4 

13  f.,  30,  87 

xx.  4 

30,  34 

ii.  5 

30 

xx.  14 

35,  79,  84 

ii.  7 

30 

xx.  17 

27,  34,  84 

ii.  8 

30 

xx.  18 

27 

iii.  1 

27,  36 

xxi.  1 

26,  42 

iii.3 

27 

xxi.  2 

30 

iii.  5 

27 

xxi.  6 

30 

iv.  1 

26,  30 

xxii. 

108 

iv.  25 

27 

xxii.  2 

108 

iv.  25  f . 

88 

xxii.  11 

21,  26 

iv.  26 

12,  26,  30 

xxii.  14-18 

27 

v.  28 

88  f. 

xxii.  14 

19,  108 

v.  29 

28 

xxii.  15  ff. 

98 

vii.9 

27 

xxiv. 

101 

ix.  27 

27 

xxiv.  10 

101 

X. 

114 

xxvi.  24 

27,  98 

X.  1 

105 

xxvii.  7 

26 

x.  19 

134,  139 

xxvii.  9-14 

62 

x.  20 

105 

xxviii. 

98 

x.  22 

105 

xxviii.  21 

27 

x.  23 

105 

xxix.-xxxiii. 

114 

xii.  8 

62 

xxix.-xxxiii.  20-23 

44 

xii.  9 

105 

xxix.  24 

114 

xii.  10-xiii.  1 

105 

xxix.  27 

42,  45 

xiii.  1 

105 

xxix.  28 

42.  45,  114 

xiii.  3 

105 

xxix.  29 

114 

xiii.  4 

105 

xxix.  30 

42 

xiii.  5 

105 

xxix.  31 

45 

xiii.  6 

105 

xxix.  35 

44 

xiii.  10 

134 

xxx.  9 

45 

xiii.  18 

62 

xxx.  14-16 

45 

xiv. 

139 

xxx.  21 

115 

xiv.  14 

79 

xxx.  22 

115 

xiv.  21 

79 

xxx.  24-26 

44 

xv.  1 

26 

xxxi.  1,  2,  3,  5 

28  f. 

xv.  2 

12,  26 

xxxi.  18 

115 

xv.  3 f . 

98 

xxxi.  20 

101 

xv.  17  f. 

98 

xxxi.  21-23 

100 

xvi.  1 

27 

xxxi.  24 

101 

xvi.  2 

27 

xxxi.  41 

42.  45 

xvi.  7 ff. 

98 

xxxi.  42 

97 

xvi.  11 

29,  32,  33 

xxxi.  51-54 

101 

xvii.  1 

26 

xxxi.  54 

62 

xvii.  12 

79 

xxxii.  29  (28) 

27 

xviii.  7 

62 

xxxii.  30,  31 

28 

148 


xxxiii.  5,  10,  11 
xxxiii.  18 
xxxiii.  20 
xxxiv.  29 
xxxvii.  2 
xxxvii.  25 
xxxvii.  28,  36 
xxxviii. 
xxxviii.  1 
xxxviii.  24 
xxxix.  1 
xxxix.  9 
xxxix.  20-22 
xxxix.  23 
xl.  1-7 
xl.  2-4,  7 
xli.  46 
xlii.  37 
xliii.  16 
xliii.  18 
xliii.  23,  29 
xliv. 
xliv.  16 
xlv.  9 

xlvi.  8,  12,  26,  27 
xlvii.  19 
xlviii.  15 
1.  24 

Exodus 
i.  1 
i.  5 
iii.  15 

iii.  19 

iv.  14 

vi.  3 12  f.,  31,35, 

vii.  19 
xiii.  21  f. 
xiii.  22 
xvi. 
xvi.  4 

xvi.  13 

xvii. 
xvii.  1-7 
xvii.  6 
xvii.  9 
xviii. 
xviii.  5 ff. 
xviii.  13-26 
xix.-xxiv. 

xix.  22,  24 

xx.  24-26 

xx.  2ff. 

xxi.  4 
xxi.  15.  17 


Index  I. 


xxii.  1 (xxi.  37) 
xxiii.  19 
xxiii.  20 

xxiv.  14 

xxv.  f . 
xxvii.  1-8 
xxxiii.  7-11 
xxiv.  22 
xxxiv.  26 


27 

115 

62 

79 

43 

8 

8,  47 
43 

46 
138 

8 

27 
9 

28 

47 
9 

43 

138 

62 

79 

27 

79 

27 

27 

43 

79 

27 

27 


43 
43 
40 
84 
67,  77 
37,  38,  39 
128 
93 
54 
99 
99 
11 
42.  98 
11 
95  f. 
53 

49  f.  54 
20.  54 
103 
132 
24 
61  ff. 

10  f.,  63 
79 
138 


i.  ff. 

ix.  22 

x.  10  f. 

X.  11 
xiii.  t. 

xiii.  47  ff. 

xiv. 

xvii.-xxvi. 
xvii. 
xxv. 
xxv.  39 


xx. 

xx.  1-13 
xx.  22-29 

xx.  22 

xxi.  1-3 
xxi  3 

xxi.  4 

xxii.  22-34 


Leviticus 


62 
66 
96 
54 
9,  53 
61,  64 
9.  10,  53  f. 
66 
66 


74 
50 
130 
123 
76 
76 
76 
15 
120 
10  f.,  144 
79 


73 
14 
78 

50 
119 

92  ff. 

93  ff. 
12 

11,  99 
129 
11,  129 
10 
103 
118 

51 
127 

48  f. 

48 

116 

48 

48 

48 

48 

74 
98 
11 

7 
51 
50,  52 
51 
51 
101 


Numbers 

i.  50-53 
iii.  1 

v.  9-10 

vi.  22-27 

ix.  10  f . 

x.  33 

x.  35,  36 

xi. 

xi.  4-6 
xi.  5 

xi.  31  ff. 

xii. 

xiii.  1-3 

xiv.  4 

xiv.  45 

xv.  22-31 

xvi. 
xvi.  2 

xvi.  3,  7,  9,  13 
xvi.  24 
xvi.25 
xvi.  27 
xvi.  32.  35 
xviii.  3 


Index  /. 

149 

xxiii.  7 

102  f. 

v.  11 

93 

xxvi.  10 

49 

vi.  9 f. 

93 

xxvii.  1 ff. 

124 

xiv.  33-35 

61 

xxvii.  3 

49,  54 

xx.  6,  29 

62 

xxviii.  f . 

65 

xxv.  11 

62 

xxviii. 

133 

xxviii.  24 

62 

xxxi. 

121 

2 Samuel 

xxxi.  18 

121 

viii. 

102 

xxxiii. 

7 

viii.  1 8 

67 

xxxiiii.  30,  31 

7 

xii.  6 

126 

xxxiii.  38 

7,  57 

xx.  26 

67 

Deuteronomy 

i.  9-13 

103 

1 Kings 

i.  50  f. 

64 

i.  22  f. 

103 

ii.  27 

72 

i.  37,  38 

104 

ii.  28  ff. 

64 

i.  40 

50 

ii.  39 

72 

i.  46 

50 

iv.  5 

67 

ii.  1,  14 

50 

viii.  55  ff. 

77 

x.  5 

46 

viii.  63 

122 

x.  6f. 

145 

xii.  31 

72 

x.  6 

7,  46,  56 

xviii.  29,  36 

133 

x.  7 

7,  49 

xviii.  30-32 

61 

x.  8 

46 

xx.  23.  28 

108 

x.  10 

46 

2 Kings 

x.  22 

43 

iii.  20 

133 

xi.  10 

118 

v.  17 

61 

XV. 

10  f. 

xvi.  15 

133 

xvi.  21 

65 

Isaiah 

xvii.  8-12 

118 

lxiii.  1-6 

118 

xvii.  14  ff. 

118 

Jeremiah 

xviii.  1 

68 

xxxii. 

133 

xviii.  6-8 

68 

xxxiii.  17-24 

72 

xviii.  7 

71 

xlviii.  47 

117 

xix.  17 

118 

xlix.  6,  17,  18 

118 

xx.  10-15 

117 

Ezekiel 

xx.  16-18 

117 

xxii.  26 

130 

xxi.  18-21 

138 

xliv.  6-16 

68  ff. 

xxiii.  3 (4) 

117 

Hosea 

xxiii.  (4) 

101,  117 

iv.  6 

131 

xxiii.  7 (8) 

117 

viii.  11-13 

132 

xxiii.  8,  (9) 

117 

Joel 

xxiv.  8 

123 

iii.  19 

118 

xxv.17-19 

117 

Amos 

xxxi.  15 

94 

ii.  4,  12 

132 

xxxiii.  8 ff. 

56.  67 

Obadiah 

xxxiii.  10 

123 

Book  of 

118 

Joshua 

iii.  3 f . 

93 

Malachi 

ii. 

72 

Judges 

v.  2 ff. 

95 

Psalms 

lx. 

102 

xiii.  19 

61 

Nehemiah 

xvii.  7 

67 

v.  5 

138 

1 Samuel 

ii.  36 

122 

I Chronicles 
xxiii.  28,  31 

74 

INDEX  II.  * 


Aaron,  death  of,  8 f.,  57 ; name 
of  96  f.,  priesthood  of,  24,  77; 
unitary  character  of,  116. 

Abiram,  48  ft. 

Abraham,  unitary  character  of, 
116. 

Addis,  Mr.,  95  f.,  97. 

Altars,  60  ft. ; horned,  64;  lay, 
63  ft. 

Amalekites,  117. 

Ammon,  117. 

Angels  as  criterion  of  sources, 
97. 

Aquila,  23  ff.,  29. 

Arad,  50  ff. 

Aram,  Aram-naharaim,  101  ff. 

Aramaic,  see  Targums. 

Archaeological  evidence,  138  f., 
140  f. 

Ark,  53,  55  f,  92  ff. 

Astruc’s  clue,  f.,  113;  tested, 
25-38. 

Balaam,  101  f. 

BiTcTcurim,  66. 

Bilhah,  114  f. 

Bondmen,  free,  79. 

Cain,  see  Homicide. 

Canaanites,  117. 

Carpenter,  Dr.  J.  E.,  11,  26  f„  48, 
84,  98  f„  134. 

Characters,  unitary,  116. 

Chronicles,  70. 

Chronology  of  Numbers,  57,  see 
also  Colenso. 

Cleanness,  and  uncleanness,  laws 
of,  128. 

Colenso,  Bishop,  -on  the  family 
of  Judah,  43  f. ; answer  to, 44  ff. ; 
on  the  chronology  of  Numbers, 
57  f . ; on  the  numbers  of  the 
Israelites,  56  f. 

Cox,  Rev.  A.  P.,  31  f. 

D,  15,  60,  66,  86,  137,  138,  140, 
141. 

Dathan,  48  ff. 

David,  67,  77,  110. 


Deborah,  song  of,  95,  96. 
Decalogue,  111  f. 

Deluge,  140. 

Deuteronomy,  111  f. 
Development,  see  Graf-Wellhau- 
sen. 

Dienstehe,  see  Jacob,  service  of. 
Dinah,  115. 

Documentary  theory,  12  f.,  14  ff., 
Doublets,  11,  42,  98  f. 

Dreams  as  criterion  of  sources, 
97  f. 

Driver,  Dr.  8.  R.,  35,  103  f.,  107  ff., 
135. 

E,  15,  26,  27,  30,  33,  34,  38,  46, 
55  f.,  67,  83,  84,  85,  98,  99,  100, 
101,  105,  113,  116,  135,  139.  See 

also  JE. 

Edom,  117. 

Eerdmans,  Professor,  106  f. 
Elohvm,  13,  15,  26-38,  63,  84,  85. 
Elohist,  13  f.,  see  also  E,  P. 
Ezekiel,  68  ff.,  110,  122,  130  f., 
133,  144. 

Ezra,  123. 

Festivals,  Calendar  of,  11. 
Firstlings,  78  f. 

Fur,  manifestus,  nec  manifestm, 
See  Theft. 

Gilead,  100  f. 

Girdlestone,  Canon,  19. 

Glosses  in  Miassoretic  Text,  40  ff., 
109. 

Goshen,  102. 

Graf-Wellhausen  Theory,  16,  35. 

See  also  Wellhausen. 

Gray,  Dr.  G.  B.,  92  ff.,  101  ff. 
Greek  Versions,  see  Aquila,  Sep- 
tuagint,  Symmachus,  Theodo- 
tion. 

Green,  Prof.  W.  H.,  106,  117  f. 
Gunkel’s  Genesis,  35. 

H,  15,  120,  130,  131. 

Hamul;  see  Hezron. 

Haran;  see  Aram-naharaim. 
Heave-offering,  78. 


The  table  of  contents  should  be  used  to  supplement  this  index. 


Index  11. 


151 


Ilexateuch,  13,  81  f.,  85  ff.,  105, 
107,  112,  144. 

Hezron  and  Hamul,  43. 

Hierarchical  organization;  see 
Priests. 

Historical  reconstruction,  17. 

Holiness,  Law  of ; see  H. 

Homicide,  Law  of,  137,  139  f. 

Horeb,  96. 

Hormah,  51. 

Hosea,  131  f. 

House  of  God,  63  ff. 

Interest,  Laws  of.  143  f. 

Ira,  the  Jairite,  67,  77. 

Ishmael,  29  f.,  33. 

J,  13  f.,  26,  27,  28,  30,  34,  38,  46, 
83,  84,  85,  88,  94,  95,  98,  99, 
101,  105,  113,  116,  134  f.,  139. 

Jacob,  marriages  of,  44  f.;  ser- 
vice of,  for  Rachel  and  Leah, 
42.  135  f.;  Unitary  character 
of,  116. 

JE.  15  f„  63  f..  66,  85,  &6,  99,  114. 
115,  116,  137,  138,  140,  141; 
see  also  E,  J. 

Je,  Jj,  34. 

JED,  15. 

Jeroboam,  133. 

Jerome,  21. 

Jethro,  20. 

Joseph,  Story  of,  8 f.,  46  f.;  uni- 
tary character  of,  116. 

Joshua,  53  ff.,  supposed  priest- 
hood of,  55  f. 

.Tosiah,  62,  67  f. 

Jubilee,  10  f..  80. 

Judah,  and  Tamar,  138;  family 
of,  43  ff. 

Kadesh,  50  f. 

Kautzsch,  Professor,  94  f.,  105. 

Kittel,  Professor,  105. 

Korah,  story  of,  48  ff. 

Kuenen,  Professor,  35,  95. 

Laban,  100  ff.,  114  f.,  136;  unitary 
character  of,  116. 

Land  laws,  144. 

Laws,  argumenl  for.  10  f.,  58  f.  : 
consistency  of,  66  f. 

Leah,  114  f. 

Levites,  10,  55  f. ; cities  of,  112; 
priests  and,  67  ff. 

Loans,  laws  of,  144. 

Machpelah,  cave  of,  136  f. 


Manna,  99. 

Manslaughter,  law  of,  127. 
Marriages  with  aliens,  121. 

St  assail  ; see  Meribah. 

Massorah,  Massoretic  Text,  18  ff, 
30  f. 

Meal-offerings;  see  Sacrifice. 
Meribah,  11 ; Massah  and,  42, 
98  f. 

Mesopotamia ; see  Aram-naha- 
raim. 

Midianites,  war  with,  121. 

Moab,  117. 

Mohar;  see  Jacob,  service  of. 
Moriah,  108. 

Moses,  unitary  character  of,  116. 
Murder,  law  of,  127. 

Naaman,  64,  66. 

Name  of  God,  revelation  of, 
39  f.;  see  also  Tetragramma- 
ton. 

Narrative,  evidence  of,  128  f. 
Numbers  of  the  Israelites,  56. 
Oaths,  law  of,  128. 

Offerings,  customary  lay.  65  : na- 
tional, 65:  statutory  individual, 

65. 

Order,  derangement  of,  49  ff.: 
perplexities  of  143  ff.,  145. 

Orr,  Professor,  J.,  84,  99,  104  f.. 
1.00. 

P;  13.  26.  27,  30.  33.  34,  38,  60, 

66.  67.  70,  73,  74.  75,  76,  83,  85, 
86.  88  f,  98.  99.  105,  112,  114. 
115,  118  ff.,  128  ff.,  136,  137,  139, 
141. 

Paddan-Aram : see  Aram-naha- 

raim. 

Pa  trio,  potestas,  138. 

PH;  seeH. 

Post-Mosaica , the,  107  f. 
Pre-Mosaic  materials,  134  ff. 
Priestly  Code,  see  P. 

Priests,  priesthood,  10,  55  f. ; and 
Levites,  67  ff.,  122,  as  teach- 
ers, 131,  in  Ex.  xix.,  24. 
Quails,  11,  99,  129. 

Rachel,  114  f.,  135  f. 

Redactor,  15,  27  f.,  84  f. 
Representation,  differences  of, 
1.4. 

Reuben  and  his  children,  138. 
Revised  Version,  mistranslation 
in.  54. 


152 


Index  II. 


“River,”  “The,”  100  f. 

Rock  of  Israel,  96. 

Sacrifice,  60  ff.,  122  f.,  132;  see 
also  Offerings;  in  the  Graf- 
Wellhausen  theory,  16. 

Samaritan  Pentateuch,  7 f.,  20, 
25,  49. 

Samuel,  67,  76  f.,  110. 

Sanctuaries,  Wellhausen  on, 
60  ff. 

Schlogl,  Professor,  36. 

Security,  laws  of,  144. 

Seir,  95  f. 

Septuagint,  19  ff.,  29  ff.,  42,  49, 
52,  77,  108. 

Sinai,  95,  96. 

Skinner,  Principal  J.,  31  ff.,  35  f., 
39. 

Slaughter,  60  ff.,  120  f. 

Slaves,  10  f,  79  f. 

Sodom  and  Gomorrah^  129,  134  f. 

Solomon,  67,  77,  122. 

Strangers,  law  of,  128. 

Style,  argument  from,  81  ff. 

Succession,  intestate;  see  Ze- 
lophehad,  daughters  of. 

Symmachus,  23. 

Syria;  see  Aram. 

Syriac  Version,  20,  21,  25,  35, 
57,  108. 

Tabernacle,  9,  53  ff. 


Targums,  21.  25. 

Tent  of  Meeting,  9 f.,  53  ff. 

Tetragrammaton,  12  f.,  26-38 ; 

see  also  Name  of  God. 

Textual  Criticism,  18  f . ; evi- 

dence of,  28  ff. ; legitimacy  of, 
21  f. 

Theft,  law  of,  126  f. 

Theodotion,  23. 

Theophany,  61  ff. 

Tradition,  testimony  of,  141  f. 

Transpositions;  see  Order,  de- 
rangement of. 

Toy,  Professor  C.  H.,  37. 

Unity,  signs  of,  113  ff. 

Variants,  Hebrew*,  28  f.  32,  33. 
34. 

Versions,  18  ff. 

Vocabulary,  differences  of,  14. 

Vulgate,  21,  25,  35,  42. 

Wellhausen,  35,  55,  67,  113;  see 
also  Graf-Wellhausen,  Sanc- 
tuaries; on  Priests  and  Le- 
vites,  67  ff. 

White,  Dr.  G.  E„  103  ff. 

Wright,  Professor  G.  F..  141. 

Zabud,  67,  77. 

Zadok,  sons  of,  69,  72. 

Zelophehad,  daughters  of,  124  ff. 

Zilpah,  114  f. 


